LONDON BOROUGH OF BARKING & DAGENHAM PLAYING PITCH AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES STRATEGY 2005 - 2010 (FINAL DRAFT) APRIL 2005
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 9
I INTRODUCTION 10
II THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT 19
III THE BOROUGH CONTEXT 30
IV OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES DEMAND 39
V OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES SUPPLY 51
VI THE BALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND 64
VII POLICY OPTIONS 80
VIII RECOMMENDATIONS 87
IX IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 90
APPENDIX I QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM 94
APPENDIX II OUTDOOR SPORTS CLUBS IN THE BOROUGH 103
APPENDIX III QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF FACILITIES 105
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1) Introduction: In autumn 2004, Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. (PLC) was commissioned by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) to produce a playing pitch and outdoor sports facilities audit and assessment report for the Borough. The document will guide the future provision and management of sports pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the Barking and Dagenham area in the context of national policy and local sports development criteria.
2) Project aims: The overall aims of the project are to:
a) Produce a comprehensive playing pitch audit and assessment report for the LBBD, which includes:
• The development of policy options.
• Key recommendations for future action planning.
• The establishment of local standards for integration into a wider leisure strategy.
b) Ensure continuity and synergy with the Council’s current Parks and Green Spaces Strategy.
3) Project scope: The sports included within the strategy are as follows and in each instance include ‘mini’ and ‘junior’ versions of the games:
a) Association Football (referred to in the study as Football).
b) Cricket.
c) Rugby Union (referred to in the study as Rugby).
d) Bowls.
e) Tennis.
4) National Policy context: The implications of the national policy context for pitch and outdoor sports facility provision in Barking and Dagenham are as follows:
a) Government targets to increase rates of participation in sport and exercise from around 30% to 70% by 2020 will place significant pressure on existing sports facility provision.
b) National planning policies provide a strong measure of protection for playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities, provided a rigorous assessment of need has been undertaken to justify retention and/or additional provision.
c) Pitches and outdoor sports facilities on school sites are subject to general protection, regardless of whether they accommodate any community use.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 1 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) As a statutory consultee in the planning process, Sport England will oppose the loss of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities unless a number of specific provisions are met.
e) The London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity has a target of increasing participation rates by 1% per annum (equivalent to 1,639 people per year, based upon the resident population of the Borough). As with the wider Government targets, this will have important implications for facility provision.
f) Most of national governing bodies of sport have detailed facility and sports development plans, all of which will impact upon provision at local level.
5) The Borough context: The implications of the Borough context for the provision of pitches and outdoor sports facilities can be summarised as follows:
a) The percentage of the total population in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports in Barking and Dagenham (6 - 44) is more than 4% higher than the equivalent national figure. Sports participation rates and demand for outdoor sports facilities in the Borough are therefore likely to be proportionately higher then the national average.
b) With the Borough population projected to rise by 14,641 (8.9%) by 2011, the number of people in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports (6 - 44) is projected to increase from 94,104 to 102,785. The total ‘market’ for pitch sports will therefore increase by around 9.2% in the next decade.
c) The Borough is a relatively deprived area, with all wards classified as being amongst the 20% most deprived in the country.
d) The Unitary Development Plan contains some general policies regarding the provision, retention and improvement of open spaces and sports facilities, but nothing specific to playing pitches and outdoor sports provision.
e) The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy recognises that many sites are in poor condition at present and have few amenities, but sets in place a series of proposed improvements.
6) Demand for pitches and outdoor sports facilities: The application of two forms of demand analysis (peak demand and Team Generation Rates - TGR’s) reveal the following demand patterns in Barking and Dagenham:
a) Football:
• 223 men’s teams and 7 women’s and girls’ teams currently play football in Barking and Dagenham.
• The TGR for senior men’s football is well below the national average, but this at least in part reflects the high proportion of shift-workers amongst the local population and the consequent need for teams to have a larger pool of players from which to draw. Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 2 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• The TGR’s for the three Sub-Areas of the Borough differ significantly, with the highest rates of participation in the Dagenham area.
• Periods of peak demand for senior and junior football and Mini-Soccer are all on Sunday mornings.
b) Cricket:
• 34 men’s teams and no women and girls’ teams currently play cricket in Barking and Dagenham.
• The TGR for senior men’s cricket is well below the national average. This would appear to indicate a latent demand for cricket facilities particularly in view of the proportion of residents in the Borough from the Indian sub- continent, whose participation in cricket is up to five times higher than the population as a whole.
• Periods of peak demand for cricket pitches are quite variable, with a split between midweek evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Total peak demand is for 6 pitches on Saturday afternoons.
c) Rugby:
• 10 senior men’s, 5 junior and 7 mini-rugby teams currently play in Barking and Dagenham.
• The TGR for rugby is well below the national average.
• Periods of peak demand for rugby pitches are on Sunday mornings (5 pitches).
d) Bowls:
• There are 7 clubs in the Borough, who are currently providing opportunities for 694 male players and 143 female players to play competitive bowls.
• The total number of bowls club members in the Borough equates to 1.25% of the resident population who are over 40, which is significantly below the national average for bowls of 1.6%.
e) Tennis: Based upon the demand figures for the 20 courts in the Borough where usage figures can be devised, an average of 185 hours of demand per court per year is produced. This figure can be extrapolated to all 40 courts in the Borough, to produce a total demand for 7,400 court hours per annum.
7) The supply of pitches and outdoor sports facilities: The main issues relating to the supply of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham can be summarised as follows:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 3 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
a) Dispersed provision: Playing pitch provision in many instances involves small numbers of pitches on single sites. If the 29 football pitches in Parsloes Park are excluded, the average number of football pitches per site falls to around two. Whilst this is a good way of delivering sporting opportunities on a localised basis, the maintenance of dispersed facilities is relatively expensive, compared with multi-pitch sites.
b) Geographical distribution: The Dagenham Sub-Area has a disproportionately high number of most facility types in relation to its overall percentage of the Borough’s population. There are a number of major pitch and outdoor sports facility sites located in neighbouring local authorities that are right on the Borough boundary and these attract extensive usage from clubs in Barking and Dagenham.
c) Pitch and changing facility quality: The analysis of the quality of playing pitches and changing facilities reveals the following:
• Pitch quality: The mean score for the Borough is well above average for all aspects of the quality of pitches.
• Changing quality: The mean score for all aspects of changing facilities equates to below average, with the size and number of changing rooms at most sites rating particularly poorly.
• Health and safety: The mean score for the health and safety of pitches and associated facilities is above average.
d) The quality of other outdoor facilities: The quality of all other types of outdoor sports facility in the Borough is rated as above average.
e) Security of access: Facilities secured for community use account for 87.7% of all outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham. Whilst this figure is encouragingly high, there are some significant facility-specific variations, in particular 35.7% of rugby pitches and 18.7% of tennis courts are on school sites and are used on a non-secured basis.
f) Pricing and demand issues: In general, the facility hire charges in Barking and Dagenham and Newham are higher than those in Havering and Redbridge. This almost certainly reflects a more limited supply of open space in the two boroughs closest to the centre of London and this is borne out by Newham’s prices being generally higher than Barking and Dagenham’s. Clubs in Dagenham and Redbridge may therefore seek to base themselves in Havering or Redbridge on cost grounds and Newham-based clubs may do the same, only in Barking and Dagenham. The Barking Sub-Area, that is closest to Newham, also has the fewest pitches and outdoor sports facilities and this is likely to lead to additional demand and usage pressures in the Barking area.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 4 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
g) Maintenance issues: Although the quality of pitches and outdoor sports provision in the Borough is generally good, the unenclosed nature of many facilities in parks means that unauthorised use is widespread and a combination of heavy usage and budgetary constraints means that quality is likely to suffer in the long term.
h) Community use of school facilities: Those schools with their own facilities offer the potential for developing additional community access, particularly since the majority of those surveyed are either positive or at worst equivocal about the prospect.
8) The balance between supply and demand: The balance between the supply of, and demand for, pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham is set out below:
a) Football: The overall situation can be summarised as follows:
• Senior pitches: Whilst there is notional ‘surplus’ of 20 senior football pitches, this is effectively eliminated by the deficit of 16 junior pitches, with junior teams frequently playing on full-sized pitches. Despite the boroughwide ‘surplus’, there is an assessed deficit of senior pitches in the Barking Sub-Area, which reflects the combination of relatively dense population and few facilities. By 2010, there will be additional demand for 8 senior pitches at peak periods.
• Junior pitches: There a deficit of 16 junior pitches in the Borough at present, which is set to rise to a shortfall of 29 junior pitches at peak periods by 2010. At present, the shortfall is compensated for by:
- Junior teams playing on senior pitches in the Borough.
- Teams playing on junior pitches on sites immediately beyond the Borough boundaries.
• Mini-Soccer pitches: There is under-provision of 13 mini-soccer pitches in the Borough as a whole and in all Sub-Areas at present. With the pressure on junior pitches, it is often not possible for mini-soccer teams to play on these larger facilities and several teams therefore have to play outside the Borough.
b) Cricket: There is a deficit of 3 cricket pitches in the Borough at peak periods on Saturday afternoons, evenly spread between the three sub-areas and set to rise to 4 pitches by 2010. Teams within the Borough are only able to meet their competitive needs by using pitches immediately beyond the Borough boundary.
c) Rugby: There is a notional ‘surplus’ of 9 rugby pitches in Barking and Dagenham at present, although this will reduce to 7 by 2010.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 5 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Bowls: Demand for Bowls in the Borough is below the national average, based upon the proportion of club members in relation to the population over 40. The seven clubs in Barking and Dagenham are currently able to fulfil their training and competitive needs by using the seven existing greens, which suggests that current supply and demand are effectively balanced. However, a combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for a further green by 2010.
e) Multi-Use Games Areas: Levels of provision of MUGA’s per capita in Barking and Dagenham are the second highest for the sample of twelve local authorities examined and are almost three times higher than the average of one per 5,000 people under 16. Whilst there are disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with a geographical concentration in the Barking Sub-Area, the levels of provision in the Dagenham and Chadwell Heath Sub- Areas are also well above the national average, which suggests that demand is fully met at present. However, a combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for an additional 4 MUGA’s by 2010.
f) Tennis: Levels of provision of tennis courts in the Borough at one per 2,648 people aged 10 - 45, are just below the average of one per 2,300 for the sample of seven local authorities examined. However, there are significant disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area poorly served with only one court per 12,625 people of tennis playing age. The combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for an additional 7 tennis courts by 2010.
9) Recommendations: Based on the above analysis, the following actions are recommended:
a) Minimum standards of provision: The following minimum standards of provision be adopted, to ensure safeguard the adequacy of existing and future pitch and outdoor sports facility provision in the Borough:
• Playing pitches: A minimum of 0.75 ha. of playing pitches per 1,000 people.
• Multi-Use Games Areas: A minimum of one MUGA per 1,500 under 16’s.
• Tennis Courts: A minimum of one tennis court per 2,500 10 to 45 year olds.
• Bowling Greens: A minimum of one bowling green per 9,500 over 40’s.
b) Quantitative deficiencies: The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and other local facility providers should seek to eliminate the identified deficiencies in the provision of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities at Borough and sub-area level, through a combination of:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 6 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• New facilities (including extensions to existing provision and developments funded through planning agreements).
• Conversion of existing facilities (where usage of one type has been discontinued but there is evidence of demand for another type).
• Improved capacity (where improvements to the playing surface and drainage increase the usage potential of a facility).
• Community use of education facilities (where access to existing school facilities by the general community is secured).
• Multi-use facilities (where deficiencies in tennis court provision can be met by providing multi-use games areas which also cater for the training demand of the pitch sports).
c) Qualitative deficiencies: The Council and all other providers should adopt a rolling programme of improvements to their playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities, such that all eventually conform with at least the ‘average’ standard set out in the quality assessment criteria in the strategy.
d) Changing facilities: All facility providers should adopt a rolling programme of improvements to their changing facilities, such that all eventually conform with at least the ‘average’ standard set out in the quality assessment criteria in the strategy. Particular attention should be paid to:
• Provision for use by women and girls.
• Access and use by people with disabilities.
e) Priority attention should be given to those currently sub-standard changing facilities that serve the largest number of pitches/facilities, namely:
• Barking Park.
• Central Park.
• May and Baker Sports Ground.
• Old dagenham Park.
• Parsloes Park.
• Valance Park.
• Warren Sports Centre.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 7 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
f) Facilities hierarchy: A hierarchy of outdoor sports facility sites should be established in the Borough, involving a ‘Football Development Centre’ in Parsloes Park and other sports-specific club-based developments where appropriate, in line with the current and future needs of the sports development programmes for each sport.
g) Security of access: It is recommended that formal Community Use Agreements should be negotiated with all schools where community access to their pitches and outdoor sports facilities is currently on an informal, unsecured basis.
h) Maintenance: It is recommended that Barking and Dagenham Council should:
• Initiate a programme of re-turfing the worn areas of goalmouths and other high use parts of the playing surfaces of their pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
• Co-ordinate the provision of grounds maintenance courses for clubs and organisations who are currently maintaining their own facilities.
10) In making these recommendations with regards to standards of provision we are aware that there are important implications concerning the availability of land in new and proposed developments. By some estimates the borough’s population will grow by some 40,000 people which would require and additional 30.3 hectares (75 acres) of new playing pitch space. Provision at this level has not been considered in development masterplans or planning briefs. The Council should, therefore, fully consider the implications of the recommendations of this report and adopt policies which both safeguard the current availability of pitches and make proper provision in the future.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 8 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This section contains a brief synopsis of some of the main terms used in the strategy document.
1) Team Generation Rate: Also abbreviated to TGR, this term refers to the number of people in a specified age group, required to generate one team. It enables a local rate of team formation to be calculated, which can then be compared with national and regional averages to establish whether local demand is higher or lower than elsewhere.
2) Peak demand period: This refers to the time period during which demand for access to facilities of various types is at its peak. For example, most football is now played on Sunday mornings and therefore this constitutes the peak demand period. Its significance is that calculations of whether there are enough facilities are generally based upon whether they can cope with demand during the peak period.
3) Synthetic Turf Pitch: Also abbreviated to STP and alternatively termed an Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP), these facilities have a synthetic grass surface and minimum dimensions of 100m x 69m. The synthetic grass surface is either sand- filled or ‘water-based’ (the latter, favoured by hockey users, involves the regular application of water to the surface). Most are fully fenced and floodlit.
4) Multi-Use Games Area: Also abbreviated to MUGA, this refers to a facility of varying dimensions but with as a minimum the size of a tennis court, which has been marked out for multi-sports use (i.e. netball, basketball, five-a-side football etc.). The playing surface should be all-weather (tarmac, synthetic turf or rubberised) and the facility should be surrounded by a fence (often with rebound boards fitted). Some MUGA’s are floodlit.
5) Community Use Agreement: This refers to a formal written agreement between an individual school or college and the local community (normally the Borough council and/or individual sports clubs), setting out the terms under which the school’s sports facilities can be used by the community. The agreements generally cover a period of years and set out the responsibilities and liabilities of the respective parties, in relation to the use of the facilities.
6) Secured community use: This refers to a site that is either in public ownership or where a formal Community Use Agreement exists to guarantee access.
7) Unsecured community use: This refers to a site that is not in public ownership and where community access is allowed on an informal basis by the site owners.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 9 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
I.
INTRODUCTION
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 10 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
I INTRODUCTION
1.1 In autumn 2004, Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. (PLC) was commissioned by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) to produce a playing pitch and outdoor sports facilities audit and assessment report for the Borough. The document will guide the future provision and management of sports pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the Barking and Dagenham area in the context of national policy and local sports development criteria.
Project background
1.2 Government policy: Over the past few years, the Government has been concerned about the loss of open space and in particular playing fields. In the drive towards an urban renaissance, the importance of green space has been highlighted as an important element in creating sustainable communities. The Urban Green Spaces Taskforce report in 2002 stressed that it is important to consider open space in terms of accessibility, quality and quantity in undertaking any local assessments.
1.3 Planning policy: Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) 17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (ODPM, July 2002) advises local planning authorities to provide the strongest protection for open space, to resist development pressures that could diminish recreational provision and to adopt a strategic approach to the provision and protection of sports facilities. In doing this, PPG17 advocates that ‘local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sport and recreation facilities’. The accompanying good practice guide ‘Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A companion Guide to PPG17’ (ODPM 2002) gives advice on undertaking local assessments, including the use of the playing pitch methodology contained in ‘Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies’ (Sport England 2003).
1.4 Local policy: The LBBD is currently implementing its ‘Parks and Green Spaces Strategy’ (LBBD, March 2004), which contains a specific recommendation that a Playing Pitch Audit and Assessment Report should be produced. In addition, the Council is reviewing its leisure provision in a move towards producing a wider leisure-related strategy. Comprehensive auditing of playing pitch provision and the production of a detailed assessment report is seen as integral to the emerging leisure strategy and will assist in prioritising future facility development and asset management within the Borough.
1.5 Development pressures: Over the next 15 years, the Borough will experience a significant growth in population and associated development. Major sites that will produce a substantial proportion of new housing include Barking town centre, Barking Riverside, South Dagenham, the University of East London site and Lymington Fields. These will collectively provide for more than 20,000 new homes.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 11 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
1.6 Development of this magnitude provides both opportunities and challenges.
a) The challenge is that the increase in population is likely to place pressure on existing playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities and could limit future capacity and allocation for green spaces.
b) The opportunity lies in mitigating the impact of the new developments with planning obligations and by securing Section 106 Agreements.
1.7 This report identifies the priorities for Section 106 Agreements and how and where developer contributions should best be spent.
1.8 Inward investment: Sport England London’s ‘Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’ (June 2004) identifies that only £10 million of Community Funding will be available for sports projects in the whole of London in the next five years. Competition for funding will therefore be fierce and it will therefore be essential to have a robust, evidence-based rationale to maximise inward investment and to support grant applications to Sport England and the other Lottery Distributing Bodies. This report will make a significant contribution to providing the supporting rationale.
1.9 Football development: The Greater London Football Partnership has recently published a facilities strategy that recommends the formation of Local Football Partnerships at borough level. The Strategy also promotes the development of one Community Football Centre per borough and with the proliferation of football within Barking and Dagenham, an audit and assessment of the facility needs of the sport in the Borough is timely.
1.10 Health benefits: The 2001 Census showed that Barking and Dagenham has the highest levels of long-term ill health of any London borough. The clear potential to link the health improvement needs of Borough residents with the developing Health Agenda and the likely ‘health and active lifestyles’ focus of future Government and Lottery funding should be embraced. There is a strong rationale for LBBD to research and develop appropriate strategic documents now (including the pitch audit and assessment), to assist in determining current and future investment priorities and to link this investment to the physical activity preferences an health issues of its residents.
Project aims
1.11 The overall aims of the project are to:
c) Produce a comprehensive playing pitch audit and assessment report for the LBBD, which includes:
• The development of policy options.
• Key recommendations for future action planning.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 12 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• The establishment of local standards for integration into a wider leisure strategy.
d) Ensure continuity and synergy with the Council’s current Parks and Green Spaces Strategy.
Project scope
1.12 Sports included: The sports included within the strategy are as follows and in each instance include ‘mini’ and ‘junior’ versions of the games:
f) Association Football (referred to in the study as Football).
g) Cricket.
h) Rugby Union (referred to in the study as Rugby).
i) Hockey.
j) Gaelic Football.
k) Golf.
l) Bowls.
m) Tennis.
1.13 Facilities included: The facilities included are as follows:
a) All natural grass and artificial turf pitches complying with the relevant governing bodies of sport specified minimum dimensions.
Table 1: Pitch Dimensions
Pitch Type Length Width Senior football Max. 120m/Min. 90m Max. 90m/Min. 45m Junior football Max. 91m/Min. 73m Max. 59m/Min. 40m Mini-soccer 73m 40m Cricket pitch 20m 3m Full-sized rugby 100m 69m Mini-rugby 75m 46m Gaelic Football Max. 145m/Min. 130m Max. 90m/Min. 80m STP full-sized 100m 69m
b) Outdoor bowling greens.
c) Tennis courts.
d) Golf courses (including pitch and putt courses).
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 13 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
e) Multi-use Games Areas.
f) Gaelic football pitches.
g) The ancillary accommodation supporting the above facilities, including changing rooms, toilets, floodlighting and car parking.
1.14 Facilities which are excluded for the purposes of the study comprise areas of grass that are used for informal play for any of the above sports and minority sports such as polo, lacrosse, baseball, softball and American football.
1.15 Community facilities: The study is concerned with public (or community) demand for pitches and outdoor sports facilities and therefore excludes the following:
a) Facilities on education sites that are used exclusively for curricular and extra-curricular purposes, with no use by ‘external’ community clubs.
b) Facilities on other ‘private’ sites such as company sports grounds and armed forces bases, with no use by ‘external’ community clubs.
1.16 The area covered: The area covered comprises the district administered by the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham.
Project tasks
1.17 The following tasks were required in connection with the project:
a) A full audit of all the playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the local authority area, including those not available for community use.
b) Full consultation with the following, using an appropriate mix of consultation methods, including postal questionnaires, telephone interviews, face-to-face interviews and focus groups:
• Clubs.
• Leagues.
• Schools (primary, secondary, specialist sports colleges, higher and further education establishments).
• County/regional governing bodies.
• LBBD officers (leisure, planning, parks and education).
• Adjoining local authorities (to explore cross-boundary issues).
• Sport England’s London regional office.
• Other providers of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 14 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
c) Site visits, with quality assessments of all playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
d) Gathering and processing of data at a ward level, with its subsequent amalgamation into agreed sub-areas.
e) Application of the playing pitch methodology, as set out in ‘Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch Strategies’.
f) Analysis of the data using the Playing Pitch Model, including modeled scenarios for the current year and subsequent years.
g) Development of policy options, which flow from the modeling results and the interpretation of these results in the light of qualitative factors.
h) Clear recommendations for playing pitch and outdoor sports facility provision, protection and enhancement.
i) Development of local standards, reflecting both qualitative and quantitative issues.
j) Key recommendations for future action planning, including the identification of priorities for Section 106 Agreements and where and how developer contributions should be spent.
The methodology adopted
1.18 To meet the requirements of the brief, the following methodology was adopted.
1.19 Audit of pitches and outdoor sports facilities: A preliminary audit of pitches and outdoor sports facilities was undertaken by reviewing existing sources of data on facilities in the Borough was undertaken, in particular:
a) The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy.
b) Grounds maintenance schedules and site information.
c) The Unitary Development Plan Proposals Map.
1.20 Consultation: The following consultative programme was initiated:
a) Clubs: 137 questionnaires circulated, 34 returned: 24.8% response rate. In addition, a Clubs Forum was convened and presentations made to the Barking and Dagenham Sports Council.
b) Leagues: All league secretaries were contacted to obtain details of affiliated clubs.
c) Schools: 59 questionnaires circulated, 21 returned: 35.6% response rate. Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 15 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) County/regional governing bodies of sport: The London/Essex governing bodies of the sports included in the audit and assessment were contacted to obtain details on development plans, facility strategies and club affiliations.
e) Local authority officers: Face-to-face interviews were convened with key staff from the Council’s leisure, planning and education departments.
f) Adjoining local authorities: All adjoining local authorities (Newham, Redbridge and Havering) were contacted to obtain details of any pitch and outdoor sports facility audits previously undertaken, including any evidence of an interchange of teams across borough boundaries.
g) Sport England’s London Region: The regional office was contacted to establish the implications of any wider initiatives, including the 2012 London Olympic bid and potential links with ‘The London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’.
h) Other providers: Contact was made with the owners of company sports grounds and commercial sports facilities to obtain information on facility provision and community access and to arrange site visits.
1.21 Site visits: All 30 identified facility sites in the Borough were visited. To assess qualitative issues on a consistent basis, a standardised ‘scoring’ mechanism was applied, which examined the following criteria:
• The number, type and quality of facilities.
• The availability, suitability and quality of changing accommodation (including its ability to accommodate female and disabled usage) and parking provision on site.
• Information regarding any constraints on use, such as shortage of changing accommodation, dual use, poor drainage etc.
• Health and safety considerations.
1.22 Sub-area analysis: Data was analysed for three sub-areas (Barking, Dagenham and Chadwell Heath).
1.23 Application of the Playing Pitch Model: The playing pitch methodology was applied as follows:
a) The number of teams/team equivalents was identified for each sport.
b) The number of home games per team per week was calculated for each sport.
c) The total number of home games per week was calculated for each sport.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 16 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) The temporal (peak) demand for games was calculated for each sport.
e) The number of pitches required for each sport on each day was defined.
f) The number of pitches available for each sport was established.
g) The findings were assessed, to identify the balance between pitch supply and demand.
h) Policy options and solutions were identified.
1.24 For the non-pitch sports, levels of provision were assessed on the basis of:
a) Identifying the capacity of the facilities.
b) Establishing levels of demand and use (where possible).
c) Identifying the number of facilities per head of population and comparing this with the comparable figure for other local authority areas.
1.25 The outputs from applying the pitch model were applied to the current situation and used to model future scenarios.
1.26 Policy options: Policy options were developed in the light of the findings.
1.27 Recommendations: Recommendations were produced for the provision, protection and enhancement of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
1.28 Local standards of provision: Local standards of provision were developed for each type of facility, based upon the outputs from the foregoing analysis.
1.29 Priorities: Priorities for Section 106 Agreements were identified, including recommendations on where and how the contributions should be spent.
Report format
1.30 To meet the provisions of the brief, this document adopts the following format:
a) Introduction.
b) The national and regional policy context.
c) The borough context.
d) Facility demand.
e) Facility supply.
f) The balance between supply and demand.
g) Policy options. Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 17 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
h) Summary and recommendations.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 18 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
II.
THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 19 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
II THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICY CONTEXT
Introduction
2.1 This section analyses the national policy context for the Barking and Dagenham pitch and outdoor sports facilities audit and assessment. A more detailed outline of the source material is contained in Appendix I. The areas covered include:
a) Government policy.
b) Sport England policy.
c) Governing bodies of sport strategies.
d) Summary of the implications for pitch and outdoor sports facility provision.
Government policy
2.2 Introduction: This section examines Government policies for sport in general and outdoor sports facilities in particular. It covers the following:
a) ‘Game Plan’ (2002), a strategy for delivering the Government’s sport and physical activity objectives.
b) Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17) ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (2002).
c) DfES Circular 3/99 ‘The Protection of School Playing Fields’ (1999).
2.3 The Government’s vision for sport and physical activity: The Government’s long-term vision for sport and physical activity by 2020 is ‘to increase significantly levels of sport and physical activity, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups; and to achieve sustained levels of success in international competition’. This is underpinned by two key objectives:
a) To achieve a major increase in participation in sport and physical activity, primarily because of the significant health benefits and to reduce the growing costs of inactivity.
b) To achieve a sustainable improvement in success in international competition, particularly in the sports that matter most to the public, primarily because of the ‘feelgood factor’ associated with winning.
2.4 To deliver the vision and objectives, the Government has the following targets:
a) To encourage a mass participation culture: The emphasis will be as much on physical activity as competitive sport, with a target of 70% (currently 30%) of the population reasonably active by 2020.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 20 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
b) To enhance international success: The target is for British and English teams and individuals to sustain rankings within the top five in the world, particularly in the more popular sports.
c) To adopt a different approach to hosting ‘mega’ sporting events: These should be seen as an occasional celebration of success, rather than as a means of achieving other Government objectives.
2.5 In order to achieve these targets, action is required in four areas:
a) Grassroots participation: A wide range of initiatives are needed, with a focus on economically disadvantaged groups, in particular young people, women and older people. These need to tackle all the barriers to participation (such as lack of time, cost, information or motivation), as well as failures in provision (poor coaches or facilities).
b) High performance sport: There needs to be better prioritisation of which sports are funded at the highest level; better development of talented sports people to help them reach that level; with funding streams and service delivery more focused on customer needs.
c) ‘Mega’ sporting events: There should be a more cautious approach to hosting these events. A set process for government involvement, including a clear assessment of the benefits is needed.
d) Delivery: Organisational reform and determining exactly what works is needed before the Government considers further increases to its investment in sport. Less money should go to bureaucrats and more to the end user. Public, private and voluntary sectors need to work together better towards a common goal.
2.6 National Government Planning Policy: In July 2002, the Government issued Planning Policy Guidance 17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ superceding the earlier 1991 version and setting out Government policy on playing pitches.
2.7 Planning objectives: The document states that ‘open spaces, sport and recreation all underpin people’s quality of life. Well-designed and implemented planning policies for open space, sport and recreation are therefore fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives’. These include:
a) Supporting an urban renaissance: ‘Local networks of high-quality, well- managed and maintained open space, sport and recreation facilities help create urban environments that are attractive, clean and safe’.
b) Supporting a rural renewal: ‘Open spaces within rural settlements and accessibility to local sports and recreation facilities contribute to the quality of life and well-being of people who live in rural areas’.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 21 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
c) Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion: ‘Well planned and maintained open spaces and good quality sport and recreation facilities can help play a major part in improving people’s sense of well-being in the place they live. As a focal point for community activities, they can bring together members of deprived communities and provide opportunities for social interaction’.
d) Health and well-being: ‘Open space, sport and recreation facilities have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness and in the social development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others’.
e) Promoting more sustainable development: ‘By ensuring that open space, sport and recreation facilities are easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or intensive sports and recreation facilities are planned for locations served by public transport’.
2.8 National Planning Policies: The policies of relevance to outdoor sports facilities are as follows:
a) Assessments of needs and opportunities:
• To ensure effective planning for open space, sport and recreation, it is essential that the needs of local communities are known. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities.
• As a minimum, assessments of need should cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for open space and built sports and recreational facilities.
• Local authorities should also undertake audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities, the use made of existing facilities, access in terms of location and costs and opportunities for open space and facilities. Audits should consider both the qualitative and quantitative elements of open space. Audits of quality will be particularly important as they will allow local authorities to identify potential for increased use through better design, management and maintenance.
• Assessments and audits will allow local authorities to identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space and will form the start point for a clear strategy and effective planning policies. They will provide vital tools for resolving the potential conflicts that arise between different uses of open space.
• The Government expects all local authorities to carry out assessments of need and audits of open space in accordance with the paragraphs above.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 22 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
b) Setting local standards: The Government believes that open space standards are best set locally. Local authorities should use the information gained from their assessments of needs and opportunities to set local standards, including:
• Quantitative elements: How much provision may be needed.
• Qualitative components: Against which to measure the need for enhancement of existing facilities.
• Accessibility: Including distance thresholds and cost factors.
c) Maintaining an adequate supply of open space: Existing open space should not be built upon unless an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown it to be surplus to requirements. Open space that is of high quality, or of particular quality to a local community, should be recognised and given protection by local authorities through appropriate policies in plans.
d) Playing fields: In advance of an assessment of need, local authorities should give very careful consideration to any planning applications involving development on playing fields. Planning permission for such developments should not be allowed unless:
• The proposed development is ancillary to the use of the site as a playing field (e.g. new changing rooms) and does not adversely affect the quantity or quality of pitches and their use.
• The proposed development only affects land that is incapable of forming a playing pitch (or part of one).
• The playing fields that would be lost as a result of the development would be replaced by playing fields of equivalent or better quantity and quality and in a suitable location.
• The proposed development is for an outdoor or indoor sports facility of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field.
e) Planning for new open space: In identifying where to locate new areas of open space, local authorities should:
• Promote accessibility by walking, cycling and public transport and ensure that facilities are accessible for people with disabilities.
• Locate more intensive recreational uses in sites where they can contribute to town centre vitality and viability.
• Avoid any significant loss of amenity to residents, neighbouring uses or biodiversity.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 23 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• Improve the quality of the public realm through good design.
• Look to provide areas of open space in commercial and industrial areas.
• Add to and enhance the range and quality of existing facilities.
• Carefully consider security and personal safety, especially for children.
• Meet the regeneration needs of areas, using brownfield in preference to greenfield sites.
• Consider the scope for using any surplus land for open space, weighing this against alternative uses.
• Assess the impact of new facilities on social inclusion.
• Consider the recreational needs of visitors and tourists.
2.9 Department for Education and Skills (DfES): There has been particular concern in recent years over the disposal of education playing fields deemed to be surplus to school requirements. Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act (1998) empowers the Secretary of State to protect school playing fields in England from disposal or change of use.
2.10 The provisions of this section were interpreted in detail by the DfES Circular 3/99 ‘The Protection of School Playing Fields’ (1999). This circular explains the powers contained in the Act, offers guidance on them and describes the criteria against which the Secretary of State expects normally to make decisions on relevant applications from local authorities, governing bodies and foundation bodies.
2.11 The Circular has introduced the need for widespread consultation within the community (including potential sporting users), before a decision can be made to dispose of all or part of a school playing field, when no longer required for curricular requirements. The Circular was introduced in the context of a general concern that many school playing fields were being lost without first establishing whether the community at large could make use of such sites.
2.12 Local Education Authorities are now required to apply to the Secretary of State for Education and Schools for approval to dispose of, or change the use of a playing field. The School Playing Field Advisory Panel advises the Secretary of State on such applications and even if approval is granted, the LEA must proceed through the formal Statutory Planning system to secure planning consent.
2.13 All applications are assessed against published criteria assessing the schools’ needs, existing community use of the playing field and a requirement that the proceeds of any sale are re-invested to provide new or improved sports facilities at schools, or improved educational facilities.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 24 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Sport England policy
2.14 National policy: Sport England has been a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting playing fields since 1996. Since 1998, local planning authorities are required to refer to the Secretary of State any planning applications that they wish to approve contrary to Sport England’s advice.
2.15 In 1996, Sport England adopted a policy on planning applications involving the development of pitches and outdoor sports facilities, ‘A sporting future for the playing fields of England’. Since that time, it has adopted a policy of resisting the loss of facilities unless one or more of the following five conditions are met:
a) A carefully quantified and documented assessment of current and future needs has demonstrated to the satisfaction of Sport England that there is an excess of facility provision in the catchment and that the site has no special significance to the interests of sport.
b) The proposed development is ancillary to the principal use of the site as a playing field or outdoor sports facility and does not affect the quantity or quality of facilities or adversely affect their use.
c) The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming a playing pitch or outdoor sports facility and does not result in:
• The loss, or loss of use of, any facility (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins).
• A reduction in the size of the playing area of any facility.
• The loss of any other sports/ancillary facilities on site.
d) The playing field or outdoor sports facility which would be lost as a result of the proposed development would be replaced by facilities of an equivalent or better quality, in a suitable location and subject to equivalent or better management arrangements, prior to the commencement of the development.
e) The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of playing field or current outdoor facility.
2.16 The Department of Culture Media and Sport has established a Playing Fields Monitoring Group, which evaluates the effect of planning applications on playing fields. In particular, it examines the influence of Sport England’s role as a statutory consultee in the planning process. It concluded that of 875 applications involving pitches in 2000 - 2001, 743 (or 85%) met with no objection from Sport England (on the basis that they complied with the criteria outlined above). Of the 132 applications that Sport England opposed, only 39 received planning permission. The Government believes that this demonstrates the effectiveness of the process of objecting to undesirable planning Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 25 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
applications to redevelop playing pitch sites.
2.17 Regional policy: Regional policy is set out in ‘The London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’ (2004). The key components are as follows:
a) Vision: The vision is ‘to have an active and successful sporting capital. For this to happen, we need to develop simple structures that enable people to start, stay and succeed in sport at every level. These will help us to change the culture of sport and physical activity in London, encouraging people to move from inactivity to regular participation’.
b) Aims: The London Plan for Sport aims to:
• Increase overall participation rates by an average of 1% per year.
• Increase participation by all under-represented groups by 1.5% per year.
• Provide the structures needed for individuals to realise their sporting potential.
c) Core themes: The following core themes form the basis of the Plan:
• The need to maximise opportunities for sport and physical activity through effective and sustainable partnerships.
• A resolve to overcome barriers and enable excluded or hard-to-reach groups to participate in sport on a daily basis.
• The need to provide opportunities and incentives for everyone in a workplace setting to take part in activity within their daily routine.
• A determination to maximise opportunities for children and young people to make physical activity part of their daily life.
• The desire to develop potential within organisations and individuals to maximise personal and sporting success.
• The potential to change attitudes by raising awareness of the economic, educational, social and health benefits of sport and physical activity.
Governing bodies of sport strategies
2.18 Introduction: This section outlines the national and/or regional strategies of the governing bodies of the sports included in the assessment, together with a synopsis of development trends that influence the need for additional facility provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 26 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Summary of National Governing Bodies of Sport Strategies
Sport Strategic facility objectives Development objectives Bowls No specific facility strategies at To create a performance pathway from present, although the need for Foundation to Excellence. County Centres of Excellence and sub-area Centres of Performance has been identified. Cricket • Club cricket: Need for grass match • Club cricket: ‘Players of all levels of pitches, artificial pitches for junior experience and ability should have sections and minimum standard the opportunity to play and become changing facilities. involved in the game in a fully • Borough Cricket: Grass match structured, organised and resourced pitches and indoor sports halls with club environment’. nets. • Borough cricket: ‘Structured cricket Source: ‘A Cricket Future for All’ activities, delivered locally to provide (ECB: 2001). quality coaching and competition through which individual skill levels can be developed and talented players identified’. Source: ‘A Cricket Future for All’ (ECB: 2001). Football Community Football Centres: One • Increase participation: In playing, ‘Hub Site’ to be established in each coaching and refereeing. London borough, comprising either: • Increase enjoyment: To sustain • A single site with space for 6 adult participation in the game. pitches, 4 mini-soccer pitches an • Widen opportunities: Improve ATP and pavilion; or coaching, training and playing • A collection of smaller sites that opportunities for groups that have collectively provide the above; or historically been excluded from • A range of ATP’s in inner city areas mainstream provision. with limited grass pitch provision. Source: ‘Greater London Local Source: ‘Football Development Football Partnership Facility Strategy’ Strategy 2001 - 2006’ (FA: 2001). (LFP, 2004) Source: ‘Greater London Local Football Partnership Facility Strategy’ (LFP, 2004) Gaelic No specific facility strategies at No specific development strategies at Football present. present. Golf No specific facility strategies at ‘To open up more golfing opportunities present. by creating a sustainable structure and supportive environment at national regional and local level, that allows people of any age, gender or background to experience the game of golf and sustain their participation ultimately through to golf club membership and beyond’. Source: ‘A Framework for Golf in England 2004 - 2014’ (EGU: 2004)
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 27 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Sport Strategic facility objectives Development objectives Hockey • Hockey-led Local Facilities: 20 • ‘Zone Hockey’: Further development peak hours per week of hockey use. of this introductory version of the game. • Multi-use Local Facilities: Priority • Active Sports: Expansion of the given to Boroughs where 50,000 County programmes to all Partnership people or more live over 15 areas. minutes from a STP. • Club development: Introduction of a Source: ‘National Facility Strategy club accreditation scheme. for Hockey’ (EHA: 1999). • Regional Academies: Completion of the planned national network. Source: ‘Hockey Development Strategy’ (EHA: 1999). Lawn Tennis • County Performance Centres: One • Mini-Tennis: Further development of per County with specialist court this introductory version of the game. surfaces (clay/acrylic). • Club Vision: Promotional programme • Tournament Venues: One per (‘Play Tennis’) for clubs seeking to Borough with sufficient uniform expand membership. court surfaces for competitive play. • City Tennis Clubs: A programme to • Community Tennis Programme: deliver tennis in or near to inner-city Upgraded club, parks and school areas, where there is under-provision of facilities. existing tennis clubs. • Indoor Tennis Initiative: Specialist • Performance Clubs: Accredited clubs indoor facilities for ‘pay and play’ for developing talented players. tennis. Source: ‘National Tennis Facilities Source: ‘National Tennis Facilities Strategy 1998 - 2002’ (LTA: 1998). Strategy 1998 - 2002’ (LTA: 1998). Rugby Union London RFU wishes to establish • Mini-Rugby: Further development of three Development Centres, based this introductory version of the game. at existing rugby clubs with one in • Women’s Rugby: Further expansion of east London. the women’s game from 5,200 teams. Source: ‘Rugby Union Facility Source: ‘Rugby Union Facility Strategy’ Strategy’ (RFU: 2000). (RFU: 2000).
Summary of the implications for pitch and outdoor sports facilities provision
2.19 The implications of the national policy context for pitch and outdoor sports facility provision in Barking and Dagenham are as follows:
g) Government targets to increase rates of participation in sport and exercise from around 30% to 70% by 2020 will place significant pressure on existing sports facility provision.
h) National planning policies provide a strong measure of protection for playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities, provided a rigorous assessment of need has been undertaken to justify retention and/or additional provision.
i) Pitches and outdoor sports facilities on school sites are subject to general protection, regardless of whether they accommodate any community use.
j) As a statutory consultee in the planning process, Sport England will oppose the loss of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities unless a number of specific provisions are met.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 28 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
k) The London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity has a target of increasing participation rates by 1% per annum (equivalent to 1,639 people per year, based upon the resident population of the Borough). As with the wider Government targets, this will have important implications for facility provision.
l) Most of national governing bodies of sport have detailed facility and sports development plans, all of which will impact upon provision at local level.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 29 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
III.
THE BOROUGH CONTEXT
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 30 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
III THE BOROUGH CONTEXT
Introduction
3.1 This section analyses the local context for the pitch and outdoor sports facilities audit and assessment and includes the following:
a) The Borough demography.
b) The local statutory planning context.
c) The local strategic planning context.
d) Sports development context.
Borough demography
3.2 Population: The total population of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is 163,944, according to the Office of National Statistics, based upon the 2001 Census. The details of age and gender are contained below:
Table 2: Population in Barking and Dagenham by age and gender
Age Group Total People Males Females 0-4 12,542 6,264 6,278 5-9 12,463 6,286 6,177 10-14 11,107 5,965 5,142 15-19 10,859 5,358 5,501 20-24 10,573 4,888 5,685 25-29 11,959 5,405 6,554 30-34 15,163 6,667 7,496 35-39 13,329 6,356 6,973 40-44 11,083 5,637 5,446 45-49 9,039 4,428 4,611 50-54 9,365 4,764 4,601 55-59 7,186 3,484 3,702 60-64 6,160 2,963 3,197 65-69 5,901 2,669 3,232 70-74 6,204 2,595 3,609 75-79 5,777 2,260 3,517 80-84 3,378 1,283 2,095 85+ 2,856 796 2,060 TOTAL 163,944 78,068 85,876
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 31 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
3.3 The percentage of the total population in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports in Barking and Dagenham (6 - 44) is 57.4%. This is more than 4% higher than the equivalent national figure of 53.2%. Sports participation rates and demand for outdoor sports facilities in the Borough are therefore likely to be proportionately higher then the national average.
3.4 Ethnicity: The 2001 census showed that 19% of the Borough’s population comes from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) communities. This is important in the context of this study as the 2004 General Household Survey showed that participation amongst BME groups is generally below the national average. For example, participation amongst the Indian community is less than 60% of that of the population as a whole.
3.5 Population projections for 2011: The projected population of the Borough in 2011 is important in planning for any changes in demand for playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities over the next decade. The following figures are an estimate of population increase between 2001 and 2011.
Table 3: Projected Population Change 2001 - 2011
Age Group No. People 2001 No. People 2011 Change 0-15 37,284 39,469 + 2,185 16-24 19,260 22,455 + 3,195 25-44 51,534 55,556 + 4,022 45-64 31,750 39,981 + 8,231 65+ 24,116 21,124 - 2,992 TOTAL 163,944 178,585 14,641
3.6 The increase in the population of 14,641 (or 8.9%) by 2011 includes 8,681 in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports (6 - 44). This will have a significant impact upon overall demand levels for outdoor sports facilities in the Borough.
3.7 Proposed housing developments: A number of major housing developments are proposed in the Borough in the period to 2025, which will also influence the demand for pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the vicinity. Details of the main proposals are set out below:
Table 4: Proposed housing developments in Barking and Dagenham
Major site Number of Total no. Proposed open dwellings people space provision Lymington Fields 700 1,645 2 ha. University of East London* 700 1,645 S106 contribution South Dagenham 4,000 9,200 Undetermined Barking Riverside 10,800 25,380 40% of the site Freshwharf 1,000 2,350 Undetermined TOTAL 17,200 40,220 -
* Projected figures only, no formal decision has been made on the site’s future. Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 32 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
3.8 Implications for playing pitch provision: With the Borough population projected to rise by 14,641 (8.9%) by 2011, the number of people in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports (6 - 44) is projected to increase from 94,104 to 102,785. The total ‘market’ for pitch sports will therefore increase by around 9.2% in the next decade.
3.9 Sub-area analysis: To assess the balance between the supply of, and demand for, pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the Borough at a more local level, three sub-areas were identified as follows in consultation with Council officers. The Community Forum areas and wards included in each sub area are also listed:
Table 5: Study Sub-Areas
Sub-Area Community Ward(s) Population Forum areas Barking 2 and 4 Abbey 56,419 Eastbury Gascoigne Longbridge Mayesbrook Thames Dagenham 1 and 6 Alibon 59,358 Eastbrook Goresbrook Heath River Village Chadwell Heath 3 and 5 Becontree 48,167 Chadwell Heath Parsloes Valence Whalebone
3.10 Deprivation: The Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions’ Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is based upon more than thirty indices of deprivation. On the basis of the IMD, every ward in the Borough is classified as being amongst the 20% most deprived in the country. Other key statistics from the 2001 census are as follows:
a) Lone parent households with dependent children make up 10.4% of households.
b) 38% of households do not have access to a car or van.
c) The largest minority ethnic group is Black African, representing 4.4% of the population.
d) 19.9% of the Borough’s population has a limiting long-term illness.
e) 39.5% of the population aged 16 to 74 has no formal qualifications.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 33 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Local statutory planning context
3.11 Introduction: The ‘Barking and Dagenham Unitary Development Plan’ (1996) contains a no policies specifically designed to protect and enhance playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities per se, although it does include a number of general policy provisions that provide important safeguards to existing facilities. The main policies of relevance are summarised below.
3.12 Community facilities: The document states that ‘while there are considerable community facilities available within the Borough, there is still some mismatch between the allocation of land uses and the social needs of Barking and Dagenham’s population. However, community facilities are needed for every section of the population and these should take into account population characteristics in terms of age, gender, race, disability, religion, level of income and social or educational background’.
3.13 Major sports facilities: Policy G71 states that ‘the Council will give consideration to the provision of a major sports facility of regional or sub- regional significance providing it complies with the following criteria:
a) It has good direct vehicular access to the trunk road network;
b) It is well served by public transport;
c) It will not have any significant adverse impact upon any nearby residential areas; and
d) It is of a high standard of design and is well landscaped’.
3.14 Community use: Policy G72 states that ‘the Council will encourage the use of school sports facilities and playing fields by the community’.
3.15 Access to leisure and recreation facilities: Policy G74 states that ‘In relation to the development and location of leisure and recreation facilities, the Council will:
a) Ensure that new facilities are designed to be accessible by people with disabilities;
b) Use its associated roles and building control and entertainment licensing authority to co-ordinate provision for people with disabilities into and within buildings;
c) Encourage the provision of toilets accessible to people with disabilities in association with leisure and recreation facilities; and
d) Encourage improvements in access to existing facilities, particularly those in Council ownership’.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 34 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
3.16 Retention of leisure and recreation facilities: Policy G75 states that ‘Planning permission will not normally be granted for a development that results in the loss of an existing leisure or recreational site or building, unless the facility is:
a) Incorporated or replaced within the new development; and
b) Relocated to a more appropriate building or a location that improves its accessibility to potential users’.
3.17 Provision of leisure and recreation facilities: Policy G76 states that ‘the Council will ensure that all new leisure developments and the use of leisure and recreation facilities should be provided for groups with low participation rates’.
3.18 Upgrading of leisure and recreation facilities: Policy G77 states that ‘the Council will seek to encourage the upgrading of existing formal recreation facilities in the Borough, including the provision of synthetic surfaced sports pitches and the floodlighting of sports facilities where appropriate’.
Local strategic planning context
3.19 Sport and Leisure Strategy: The most recent LBBD Sport and Leisure Strategy expired in 2001 and the document has not been updated subsequently. There is therefore no current policy statement on sport and leisure issues.
3.20 Parks and Green Spaces Strategy: The LBBD ‘Strategy for Parks and Green Spaces’ contains the following material of relevance to pitches and outdoor sports facilities:
a) Links with Community Plan priorities: The provision of parks and green spaces contributes to making the Borough ‘cleaner, greener and safer’ and will form part of many regeneration schemes.
b) Qualitative audit: Each park and green space was assessed in terms of their quality, security, usage and facilities. The general findings were:
• There is a general lack of good-quality landscape, particularly the recreation grounds and playing fields.
• Few local parks (less than 5ha. in size) are within a five-minute walk of people’s homes. Most residential areas in the Borough are served by medium to large parks (20ha. to 60ha.).
• Most of the parks and open spaces are in a poor condition.
• Entrances to parks were often unattractive and could not be seen surrounding streets.
• There is a general lack of facilities in the parks and green spaces, particularly toilets and refreshments.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 35 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• In general, children, young people and the elderly are poorly catered for. Management and maintenance is below average, as is consideration of ecological, educational and health issues.
c) Public consultation: Public consultation in 2001 revealed that:
• 42% of residents are satisfied with parks and open spaces (compared with the London Average of 52%).
• 43% rated parks and open spaces as the Council service they use most frequently.
d) Strategic goals: These are as follows:
• To adopt a Landscape Framework Plan to address the need for new green spaces to improve the quality of life in the Borough.
• To secure long-term investment.
• To improve the way parks and green spaces are managed.
• To set up a Parks and Green Spaces Steering Group, which will work across Council departments.
• To prepare a Local Biodiversity Action Plan.
• To increase and promote community involvement in, and satisfaction with, parks and green spaces.
• To adopt a management plan for every park and green space by 2012.
• To encourage the use of parks and green spaces for lifelong learning and healthy lifestyles, through events, festivals and healthy walks.
• To adopt an events and marketing strategy which will raise the profile of parks and green spaces and develop a strong sense of ownership within local communities.
• To celebrate the success of park improvements through achieving national recognition such as Green Flag awards and ‘London in Bloom’.
Local sports development context
3.21 Introduction: There is no current formal sports development strategy for the Borough, although there is a work plan and a number of issues impacting on pitch and outdoor sports facilities were identified in consultation with the Council’s sports development staff and the governing bodies of sport.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 36 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
3.22 Football development: Barking and Dagenham has long been a vibrant football area and interest is high at all levels, with junior and mini soccer showing strong growth. This, however, has brought problems of wear and tear and deteriorating condition of changing rooms and pavilions. Several local clubs have ambitions to achieve Charter Standard Development Club status but need facilities and tenure to be able to achieve this. There is a need for a central, high standard facility to provide a focus for football in the borough. Parsloes Park is ideally placed to provided such a focus. Barking Ladies FC is currently seeking to develop dedicated female changing in Mayesbrook Park as part of its efforts to obtain FA Charter status.
3.23 Cricket development: At national level, the need for good quality grass pitches is highlighted for both club and district level play, although many facilities now comprise an artificial grass wicket set in a lightly mown outfield, with no grass cricket table as such. The maintenance of good quality grass wickets is a major challenge. The national situation is reflected in the Borough, with club development in Barking and Dagenham being hampered by the lack of high standard facilities. This appears to adversely affect participation by members of the BME communities. There is currently no Barking and Dagenham club in the Essex Cricket League, the senior competition in the County. Players wishing to perform at the highest level of recreational cricket or with the talent to progress further must, therefore, go outside the Borough. Essex Cricket Board is active in the Borough working with both clubs and schools to improve facilities and build developmental pathways.
3.24 Rugby development: The senior club in the Borough is Barking Rugby Club, which is highly regarded by the county union. The Club is currently top of Division three South of the National League and good links are in place with local schools. The club is seeking additional facilities to prevent wear and tear on existing pitches and to allow greater participation. Development at the Dagenham Club site in Central Park depends on the club being able to reach agreement with the council on tenure and funding.
3.25 Tennis development: Despite and active junior development programme, there are currently no clubs in the borough. Players therefore need to travel out of the borough to enjoy competitive play.
Summary of the Borough context
3.26 The implications of the Borough context for the provision of pitches and outdoor sports facilities can be summarised as follows:
a) The percentage of the total population in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports in Barking and Dagenham (6 - 44) is more than 4% higher than the equivalent national figure. Sports participation rates and demand for outdoor sports facilities in the Borough are therefore likely to be proportionately higher then the national average.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 37 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
b) With the Borough population projected to rise by 14,641 (8.9%) by 2011, the number of people in the age groups actively participating in pitch and outdoor sports (6 - 44) is projected to increase from 94,104 to 102,785. The total ‘market’ for pitch sports will therefore increase by around 9.2% in the next decade.
c) The Borough is a relatively deprived area, with all wards classified as being amongst the 20% most deprived in the country.
d) The Unitary Development Plan contains some general policies regarding the provision, retention and improvement of open spaces and sports facilities, but nothing specific to playing pitches and outdoor sports provision.
e) The Parks and Green Spaces Strategy recognises that many sites are in poor condition at present and have few amenities, but sets in place a series of proposed improvements.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 38 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
IV.
DEMAND FOR PLAYING PITCHES AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 39 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
IV DEMAND FOR PLAYING PITCHES AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
Introduction
4.1 This section examines the supply of outdoor sports facilities and playing pitches in Barking and Dagenham and includes:
a) Demand for football.
b) Demand for cricket.
c) Demand for rugby.
d) Demand for bowls.
e) Demand for Multi-Use Games Areas.
f) Demand for tennis.
g) Demand for golf.
4.2 Methodology: The methodology for assessing facility demand involves stages one to five of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model, namely:
a) Stage one: Identifying teams/team equivalents: This information was generated from a variety of sources, including:
• Governing body of sport handbooks (although these list affiliated clubs rather than the numbers of teams at each club).
• The returns from the postal questionnaire survey of clubs, which did seek information on team numbers (although the overall response rate of 27% meant that some extrapolation was required).
b) Stage two: Calculating home games per team per week: These figures were identified from information provided by league secretaries, bookings data and the postal questionnaire survey of clubs.
c) Stage three: Assessing total home games per week: This was calculated from the outputs of stages one and two above.
d) Stage four: Establishing temporal demand for games: This was identified from information provided by league secretaries, bookings data and the postal questionnaire survey of clubs.
e) Stage five: Defining pitches used/required on each day: This was identified by dividing the peak pitch demand figure by two, to reflect the fact that half the teams will be playing ‘away’ fixtures on any given occasion.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 40 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
4.3 Team Generation Rates: Team Generation Rates (TGR’s) are the ratio between the number of teams within a defined area and the total population within the sports playing age group within that area. Identifying TGR’s enables comparisons to be made between:
a) The various sub-areas in the Borough, to establish relative demand levels.
b) Barking and Dagenham as a whole, other areas of the Country and the national average, to place the local situation in a wider demand context.
Demand for football
4.4 Introduction: The following teams are currently playing competitive football in Barking and Dagenham:
a) Men’s football: The following men’s and boys teams play football in Barking and Dagenham:
Table 6: Number of Men’s Football Teams
Age group Number of teams Senior (over 16) 136 Junior (10 - 16) 57 Mini-Soccer (under 10) 30 Total 223
b) Teams play in a wide range of competitions during the season as follows:
• Southern League • Essex Sunday Corinthian League • Barking Sunday League • Essex Sunday Football Combination • Essex Sunday Junior Trophy • South Essex Sunday Football League • Romford Charity Cup • Chelmsford Youth Sunday League • London City Airport League • Dagenham & District Sunday League • Eastern Junior Alliance • South Essex Intermediate Combination • Barking Youth League • Essex Business Houses League • Nationwide Conference
c) Women’s football: Barking Ladies FC provides competitive football opportunities for women in the Borough and plays in the South-East Counties Women’s Football League. Three clubs run girls teams and the total number of teams in the Borough is as follows:
Table 7: Number of Women’s and Girl’s Football Teams
Age group Number of teams Senior (over 16) 1 Junior (10 - 16) 3 Mini-Soccer (under 10) 3 Total 7
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 41 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Teams in Sub-Areas: The following numbers of football teams from the Borough play their home fixtures in the respective sub-areas in the Borough and at sites immediately beyond:
Table 8: Football Teams by Sub-Area in Barking and Dagenham
Sub-Area Senior Junior Mini-Soccer Women/Girls TOTAL Barking 32 12 6 5 55 Dagenham 58 30 16 2 106 Chadwell Heath 22 4 2 0 28 Adjoining areas 24 11 6 0 41 TOTAL 136 57 30 7 230
4.5 Temporal demand: Periods of peak demand for football pitches by men’s and women’s teams of all age groups in Barking and Dagenham are heavily biased towards Sunday play at all age groups. The total number of teams playing in the Borough at each of the main demand periods is as follows:
Table 9: The number of Football teams playing per demand period
User Group Saturday (am) Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Sunday (pm) Seniors 0 42 94 0 Juniors 0 0 57 0 Mini-Soccer 0 0 30 0 Women/Girls 0 0 7 0
4.6 Peak demand for pitches: By dividing the above figures by two, to reflect the fact that half the teams will be playing away at any given time, total pitch demand can be identified:
Table 10: The number of Football pitches required per demand period
User Group Saturday (am) Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Sunday (pm) Seniors 0 21 47 0 Juniors 0 0 29 0 Mini-Soccer 0 0 15 0 Women/Girls 0 0 4 0
4.7 In common with most other areas of the country, there is a strong peak in demand for football pitches for all age groups on Sunday mornings, which creates the need for a larger number of pitches to meet the demand than would be the case if matches were played at more varied times.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 42 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
4.8 Borough Team Generation Rates: The TGR’s for senior and junior football and Mini-Soccer in Barking and Dagenham are contained in the table below. They show the number of people required to produce one football team. The lower the right-hand figure in each ratio, the higher the participation rate for the area.
Table 11: Football Team Generation Rates in Barking and Dagenham
Age Group Number of teams Males in age group TGR Senior (16 - 45) 136 34,245 1:252 Junior (11 - 16) 57 5,844 1:103 Mini (6 - 10) 30 6,222 1:207
4.9 Sub-Area Team Generation Rates: The TGR’s for senior football by sub-area of the Borough are set out in the table below, to illustrate the geographical differences. For ease of comparison, teams playing in adjoining areas outside the Borough have been allocated to the closest sub-area within it.
Table 12: Senior football TGR’s by Sub-Area in Barking and Dagenham
Sub-Area Number of teams Males in age group TGR Barking 40 11,780 1:295 Dagenham 66 12,397 1:188 Chadwell Heath 30 10,068 1:336
4.10 Comparisons with TGR’s elsewhere: The table below lists a selection of TGR’s for senior men’s football in other areas the country, for comparison with Barking and Dagenham:
Table 27: Comparison with Football Team Generation Rates elsewhere
Area TGR Thurrock 1:141 Daventry 1:150 Cambridge 1:158 Maidstone 1:167 Stevenage 1:169 Hastings 1:183 National Average 1:213 Lincoln 1:218 Portsmouth 1:236 Barking and Dagenham 1:252 Tyne and Wear 1:290 Dover 1:361 South Holland 1:442
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 43 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
4.11 Summary: Analysis of Team Generation Rates reveals the following:
a) The TGR figure for the Borough as a whole is below the national average. Whilst this may superficially suggest that participation rates are also below average, factors such as employment patterns in the area may be equally important. With shift working increasingly prevalent, fewer players may be available to play at a given time each week. This is borne out by analysis of the questionnaire returns by clubs, that show 20 to 25 players are typically required to raise a team of eleven players plus substitutes.
b) There are very significant variations in TGR’s between the Sub-Areas, with the Dagenham Sub-Area showing participation rates that are almost twice as high as the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area. A number of factors may account for this:
• The demographic composition of the areas varies, with participation rates higher amongst lower socio-economic groups.
• The relatively high levels of provision in the Dagenham Sub-Area may facilitate additional participation, whereas the relative scarcity of many facility types in the Barking and Chadwell Heath Sub-Areas may be suppressing demand levels.
Demand for Cricket
4.12 Introduction: The following teams are currently playing competitive cricket in Barking and Dagenham:
Table 13: Number of Cricket Teams:
Age group Number of teams Senior (over 18) 16 Junior (10 - 18) 18 Total 34
4.13 Teams play in a range of competitions including:
• Morrant Essex Cricket League • Essex Sunday League • Havering Cricket League • Peter Coe Cup
4.14 Women’s cricket: There are no women’s or girl’s-only cricket teams in the Borough, although two clubs operate mixed teams at junior level.
4.15 Teams in Sub-Areas: The following numbers of cricket teams are based in and draw the majority of their memberships from the respective sub-areas in Barking and Dagenham:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 44 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Table 14: Cricket Teams by Sub-Area in Barking and Dagenham
Sub-Area Senior Junior TOTAL Barking 4 4 8 Dagenham 5 8 13 Chadwell Heath 5 4 9 Adjoining areas 2 2 4 TOTAL 16 18 34
4.16 Temporal demand levels: The total number of teams playing in Barking and Dagenham at each of the main demand periods is as follows:
Table 15: The number of Cricket teams playing per demand period
User Group Midweek (eve) Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Sunday (pm) Seniors 4 8 0 4 Under 18’s 4 4 6 4
4.17 Peak demand for pitches: By dividing the above figures by two, to reflect the fact that half the teams will be playing away at any given time, total pitch demand can be identified:
Table 16: The number of Cricket pitches required per demand period
User Group Midweek (eve) Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Sunday (pm) Seniors 2 4 0 2 Under 18’s 2 2 3 2 TOTAL 4 6 3 4
4.18 The spread of demand for Cricket pitches in the Borough is more even than for football, with the main peak on Saturday afternoon and a subsidiary peak on Sunday afternoon.
4.19 Team Generation Rates: The TGR for senior cricket in Barking and Dagenham is based upon the teams generated by males aged 10 - 55. The resultant TGR is 1:1,445.
4.20 Comparisons with TGR’s elsewhere: The table below lists a selection of TGR’s for cricket elsewhere in the country, for comparison with the Borough:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 45 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Table 17: Comparison with Cricket Team Generation Rates elsewhere
Area TGR Mid Devon 1:271 Maidstone 1:331 Torbay 1:463 Redcar and Cleveland 1:629 Dover 1:712 Thurrock 1:760 National Average 1:858 Daventry 1:875 Cambridge 1:908 Stevenage 1:1,158 East Lindsey 1:1,438 Barking and Dagenham 1:1,445 Portsmouth 1:2,808
Demand for Rugby
4.21 Introduction: The following teams currently play rugby in Barking and Dagenham:
Table 18: Number of Rugby Teams:
Age group Number of teams Senior (over 15) 10 Junior (10 - 15) 5 Mini (under 10) 7 Total 22
4.22 Teams play in a range of competitions including:
• National Division 3 South • Essex League • Powergen Cup • Essex County Cup • John Alder Cup • President’s Cup
4.23 Women’s rugby: There is no women’s rugby team in the Borough although junior girls play in a mixed side in the under 10 age group.
4.24 Teams in Sub-Areas: The following rugby teams are based in and draw the majority of their memberships from the respective sub-areas in the Borough:
Table 19: Rugby Teams by Sub-Area in Barking and Dagenham
Sub-Area Senior Junior Mini TOTAL Barking 5 5 7 17 Dagenham 5 0 0 5 Chadwell Heath 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 10 5 7 22
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 46 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
4.25 Team Generation Rates: The TGR for men’s rugby in the Borough is based upon the teams generated by males aged 8 - 45. The resultant TGR is 1:1,985.
4.26 Comparisons with TGR’s elsewhere: The table below lists a selection of TGR’s for rugby elsewhere in the country, for comparison with the Borough:
Table 20: Comparison with Rugby Team Generation Rates elsewhere
Area TGR Mid Devon 1:495 West Devon 1:501 South Kesteven 1:625 East Devon 1:716 Wyre Forest 1:1,062 Malvern Hills 1:1,068 Lincoln 1:1,137 National Average 1:1,161 North Wiltshire 1:1,185 Boston 1:1,268 Kennet 1:1,337 Dover 1:1,758 Barking and Dagenham 1:1,985 Maidstone (Kent) 1:4,630
4.27 Temporal demand levels: The total number of teams playing in Barking and Dagenham at each of the main demand periods is as follows:
Table 21: The number of Rugby teams playing per demand period
User Group Saturday (am) Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Sunday (pm) Seniors 0 10 0 0 Under 15’s 0 0 5 0 Under 10’s 0 0 7 0 TOTAL 0 10 12 0
4.28 Peak demand for pitches: By dividing the above figures by two, to reflect the fact that half the teams will be playing away at any given time, total pitch demand can be identified:
Table 22: The number of Rugby pitches required per demand period
User Group Saturday (pm) Sunday (am) Seniors 5 0 Under 15’s 0 3 Under 10’s 0 2* TOTAL 5 5
* Because Mini-Rugby is played across half of a senior-sized pitch, each pitch can accommodate two games (and four teams) simultaneously.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 47 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Demand for Bowls
4.29 Introduction: There are 7 clubs currently providing opportunities for members to play competitive bowls in Barking and Dagenham. The total number of members of bowls clubs in the Borough is as follows:
Table 23: The number of bowls club members in Barking and Dagenham
Category Males Females Seniors 687 143 Juniors 7 0 TOTAL 694 143
4.30 Because of the structure of the game, clubs enter a large number of teams in various competitions with different formats (singles, pairs, triples, fours etc.). Competitions in which local teams play include:
• Romford & District Bowls League • Valance Bowls League • Essex Bowls League • Saban Bowls League
4.31Clubs in sub-areas: The following bowls clubs are based in and draw the majority of their memberships from the respective sub-areas in the Borough:
Table 24: Bowls clubs by Sub-Area in Barking and Dagenham
Sub-Area Clubs Barking 3 Dagenham 3 Chadwell Heath 1 TOTAL 7
4.32Team Generation Rates: Because of the competitive structure of bowls, Team Generation Rates cannot be produced on the same basis as for the pitch sports. However, in terms of overall participation rates, the total number of bowls club members in the Borough equates to 1.25% of the resident population who are over 40, which is below the national average for bowls of 1.6%.
4.33Temporal demand levels: Competitive fixtures are played on a daily basis throughout the season (April to September) with no period of peak demand.
Demand for Multi-Use Games Areas
4.34Calculating the demand profile for MUGA’s in Barking and Dagenham is problematic from two standpoints:
a) Usage figures from the commercially run ‘Goals’ soccer centre (comprising eleven MUGA’s) were unavailable.
b) All other MUGA’s in the Borough are used free of charge and therefore there are no booking records.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 48 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
4.35 The assessment of the adequacy of provision on MUGA’s in the Borough is therefore based on a comparison of levels of supply with other local authority areas and this is examined in section 6.13 below.
Demand for Tennis
4.36Calculating the demand profile for tennis in Barking and Dagenham is problematic from two standpoints:
a) There is only one organised tennis club (the tennis section of the May and Baker Sports Club), which accounts for a relatively small percentage of overall tennis play in the Borough.
b) There are limited casual usage records because most courts are used free of charge.
4.37 The assessment of the adequacy of provision on tennis court provision in the Borough is therefore based on a comparison of levels of supply with other local authority areas and this is examined in section 6.14 below.
Summary of outdoor sports facility demand
4.38The application of two forms of demand analysis (peak demand and Team Generation Rates) reveal the following demand patterns in Barking and Dagenham:
f) Football:
• 223 men’s teams and 7 women’s and girls’ teams currently play football in Barking and Dagenham.
• The TGR for senior men’s football is well below the national average, but this at least in part reflects the high proportion of shift-workers amongst the local population and the consequent need for teams to have a larger pool of players from which to draw.
• The TGR’s for the three Sub-Areas of the Borough differ significantly, with the highest rates of participation in the Dagenham area.
• Periods of peak demand for senior and junior football and Mini-Soccer are all on Sunday mornings.
g) Cricket:
• 34 men’s teams and no women and girls’ teams currently play cricket in Barking and Dagenham.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 49 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• The TGR for senior men’s cricket is well below the national average. This would appear to indicate a latent demand for cricket facilities particularly in view of the proportion of residents in the Borough from the Indian sub-continent, whose participation in cricket is up to five times higher than the population as a whole.
• Periods of peak demand for cricket pitches are quite variable, with a split between midweek evenings and Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Total peak demand is for 6 pitches on Saturday afternoons.
h) Rugby:
• 10 senior men’s, 5 junior and 7 mini-rugby teams currently play in Barking and Dagenham.
• The TGR for rugby is well below the national average.
• Periods of peak demand for rugby pitches are on Sunday mornings (5 pitches).
i) Bowls:
• There are 7 clubs in the Borough, who are currently providing opportunities for 694 male players and 143 female players to play competitive bowls.
• The total number of bowls club members in the Borough equates to 1.25% of the resident population who are over 40, which is significantly below the national average for bowls of 1.6%.
j) Tennis: Based upon the demand figures for the 20 courts in the Borough where usage figures can be devised, an average of 185 hours of demand per court per year is produced. This figure can be extrapolated to all 40 courts in the Borough, to produce a total demand for 7,400 court hours per annum.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 50 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
V.
THE SUPPLY OF PLAYING PITCHES AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 51 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
V THE SUPPLY OF PLAYING PITCHES AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITIES
5.1 Introduction: This section examines the supply of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham and contains the following sections:
a) Quantitative issues.
b) Qualitative issues.
c) Security of access.
d) Pricing and charging.
e) Maintenance issues.
f) Community use of education pitches.
5.2 Methodology: The methodology for assessing facility demand involves stage six of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Model, namely establishing the number of pitches (and outdoor sports facilities) available. This information was generated from a number of sources, including data provided by the Council and the responses to the schools and clubs surveys.
Quantitative issues
5.3 Overall pitch sites and numbers: The table below lists the number of individual sites and the related numbers of facilities complying with governing body requirements which are available for community use in Barking and Dagenham as a whole:
Table 26: Average Facility Numbers per Site in Barking and Dagenham
Facility Type No. sites No. facilities Average no. facilities/ site Senior football pitches 22 69 3.13 Junior football pitches 6 13 2.17 Mini-soccer pitches 3 5 1.67 Cricket pitches 2 3 1.50 Full-sized rugby 6 14 2.33 pitches Gaelic football Pitches 1 1 1.00 Synthetic turf pitches 2 2 1.00 Multi-use games areas 10 25 2.50 Bowling greens 5 7 1.40 Tennis courts 10 32 3.20 Golf facilities 1 1 1.00
5.4 Playing pitch provision in many instances involves small numbers of pitches on single sites. If the 29 football pitches in Parsloes Park are excluded, the average number of football pitches per site falls to around two. This has a number of implications: Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 52 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
a) The provision of facilities on dispersed basis is a good way of delivering sporting opportunities on a localised basis, however the maintenance of dispersed facilities is relatively expensive, compared with multi-pitch sites.
b) It will make it difficult to implement the FA’s stated priority of promoting Community Clubs with a minimum of ten teams and a consequent requirement for at least five pitches on a single site, because at present only five sites in the Borough could accommodate this.
5.5 Geographical spread: The table below compares with the percentage of facilities in each sub-area of the Borough with the percentage of the resident population in each sub-area, as a preliminary assessment of relative adequacy of provision:
Table 27: Facilities in Barking and Dagenham compared with Sub-Area populations
Sub-Area % Borough Football Football Mini- Full-sized Cricket Population Senior Junior Soccer Synthetic No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Barking 34.4 13 18.8 5 38.5 1 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Dagenham 36.2 33 47.8 7 53.8 3 60.0 1 50.0 2 66.7
Chadwell Heath 29.4 23 33.2 1 7.7 1 20.0 1 50.0 1 33.3
TOTAL 100.0 69 100 13 100 5 100 2 100 3 100
Sub-Area % Borough Rugby MUGA’s Tennis Bowling Golf Population Courts Greens Facilities No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Barking 34.4 3 21.4 18 72.0 15 46.9 3 42.8 0 0.0
Dagenham 36.2 9 64.3 4 16.0 15 46.9 2 28.6 1 50.0
Chadwell Heath 29.4 2 14.3 3 12.0 2 6.2 2 28.6 1 50.0
TOTAL 100.0 14 100.0 25 100.0 32 100.0 7 100.0 2 100.0
5.6 The above tables identify the following anomalies:
a) With the exception of junior football pitches, MUGA’s, Bowling Greens and tennis courts, the Barking Sub-Area has fewer of all types of facilities, proportionate to its population.
b) There are relatively few MUGA’s in the Dagenham sub-area but more of all the other facilities proportionate to its population.
c) With the exception of adult football pitches, artificial turf pitches, cricket and golf facilities, the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area has fewer of all types of facilities, proportionate to its population.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 53 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
5.7 Provision in adjoining boroughs: A number of pitches immediately adjacent to the boundary of Barking and Dagenham are used by clubs drawing their membership from within the Borough. The most significant of these are as follows:
Table 28: Pitches provided close to the Borough boundaries
Site Local authority Adjacent Sub-Area Facilities Barking Recreation Ground Newham Barking • 1 Junior Football • 1 MUGA Ford Sports & Social Club Havering Dagenham • 5 Senior Football • 1 Cricket Pitch Goodmayes Park Redbridge Chadwell Heath • 2 Senior Football • 1 Junior Football • 1 Cricket Pitch • 4 Tennis Courts • 2 Bowling Greens • 1 MUGA Goodmayes Park Extension Redbridge Chadwell Heath • 6 Senior Football
5.8 Facility ownership: The table overleaf sets out a summary of the ownership of the pitch and outdoor sports facility sites with community use in Barking and Dagenham:
Table 29: Outdoor Sports facility Site Ownership
Type Number of sites % London Borough of Barking and Dagenham 15 50.0 Schools/colleges 8 26.7 Voluntary sector sports clubs 5 16.7 Commercial providers 2 6.6 TOTAL 30 100.0
5.9 The role of Multi-Use Games Areas: MUGA’s provide a valuable supplement to playing pitches, in particular those that are floodlit, by catering for demand for training by football clubs. Some also accommodate demand for competitive play, in particular the commercially managed ‘Goals’ soccer centre, that runs leagues and competitions for five-a-side and seven-a-side teams. The FA’s facilities development strategy is keen to support the development of such facilities, particularly in areas where there are demand pressures on natural turf pitches.
Qualitative issues
5.10 Introduction: Because the quality of facilities affects both their capacity to accommodate play (supply) and may also influence demand levels (positively and negatively), a qualitative scoring system was devised, to assess the quality of the following aspects of the types of facility included in the study. Full details of the scoring system are contained in appendix I, with the main criteria listed below:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 54 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Table 30: Criteria for Facility Quality Assessments
Facility Type Criteria Examined Playing pitches Pitch playing surface Pitch levels Pitch drainage Location of changing facilities Size of changing rooms Number of changing rooms Officials changing Provision for women Disabled provision. Health and safety. Multi-Use Games Playing surface Areas Floodlighting Fencing Disabled provision Health and safety Tennis courts Playing surface Floodlighting Fencing Disabled provision Health and safety Bowling greens Playing surface Changing facilities Disabled provision Health and safety Golf facilities Playing surface Disabled provision Health and safety
5.11 Each of the above aspects was assessed against a series of standardised definitions and graded as either ‘high quality’ (score 5), ‘above average’ (score 4), ‘average’ (score 3), ‘below average’ (score 2), ‘poor quality’ (score 1), or ‘no provision’ (score 0).
5.12 Each of the 31 pitch and outdoor sports facility sites in the Borough was assessed, using a combination of:
a) Site visits by the consultancy team.
b) Self-assessment by the facility providers.
c) Self-assessment by facility users.
d) Overview evaluation by local authority staff.
5.13 The approach adopted enabled ‘scores’ to be verified and cross-checked, to reach an accurate assessment of the quality both of individual sites and of specific aspects of their pitches and changing facilities. The results are tabulated below.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 55 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
5.14 Playing pitches: The table below details the average scores allocated for the pitch quality criteria in each sub-area in Barking and Dagenham, to enable comparisons to be made. Based on the rating system, a ‘score’ of 3 equates to ‘average’:
Table 31: Average Pitch and Changing Quality Scores by Sub-Area
Quality Criteria Barking Dagenham Chadwell Heath AVERAGE Sub-Area Sub-Area Sub-Area Pitch playing surface 3.33 3.45 4.08 3.62 Pitch levels 3.71 3.73 4.25 3.90 Pitch drainage 3.54 3.59 3.08 3.40 Location of changing 2.92 4.23 3.42 3.52 Size of changing rooms 1.21 1.82 1.33 1.45 Number of changing rooms 1.38 1.91 1.17 1.49 Officials changing 2.00 2.77 2.33 2.37 Provision for women 2.25 3.32 2.33 2.63 Disabled provision 1.46 2.95 1.92 2.11 Health and safety 3.08 3.82 3.50 3.47 AVERAGE 2.49 3.16 2.74 2.80
5.15 The analysis of the quality of playing pitches and changing facilities reveals the following:
a) Pitch quality: The mean score for the Borough is well above average for all aspects of the quality of pitches.
b) Changing quality: The mean score for all aspects of changing facilities equates to below average, with the size and number of changing rooms at most sites rating particularly poorly.
c) Health and safety: The mean score for the health and safety of pitches and associated facilities is above average.
5.16 Sites rated as below average: The table below lists those pitch sites in the Borough where the pitches and/or changing facilities are rated below average (see appendix III for individual site scores):
Table 32: Pitches and changing facilities with below average quality ratings
Sub-Area Playing Pitches Changing Facilities Barking • Castle Green • Barking Park • Eastbury School • Parsloes Park • Mayesbrook Park
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 56 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Sub-Area Playing Pitches Changing Facilities Dagenham • Parsloes Park • Eastbrook School • May & Baker Sports Club • All Saints School • Robert Clack School • Jays Youth FC • The Leys Chadwell Heath • Warren Sports Centre • Parsloes Park • Valance Park
5.17 Multi-use Games Areas: The table below details the average scores allocated for the multi-use games area quality criteria, including an overall mean for the criteria, in each sub-area in the Borough, to enable comparisons to be made:
Table 33: Multi-Use Games Area Quality Scores by Sub-Area
Quality Criteria Barking Dagenham Chadwell Heath AVERAGE Sub-Area Sub-Area Sub-Area Playing surface 4.44 4.00 3.75 4.06 Lighting 5.00 3.00 - 4.00 Fencing 4.17 3.00 3.25 3.47 Disabled access 3.89 3.38 3.00 3.42 Health and safety 3.56 3.00 3.75 3.44 AVERAGE 4.21 3.28 3.44 3.68
5.18 Multi-use games areas in the Borough as a whole have a mean score of above average for all the assessed criteria. The only MUGA’s that are rated below average overall are the facilities in Barking, Goresbrook and Valance Parks.
5.19 Tennis Courts: The table below details the average scores allocated for the tennis court quality criteria, including an overall mean for the criteria, in each sub-area in the Borough, to enable comparisons to be made:
Table 34: Tennis Court Quality Scores by Sub-Area
Quality Criteria Barking Dagenham Chadwell Heath AVERAGE Sub-Area Sub-Area Sub-Area Playing surface 4.00 4.70 5.00 4.57 Lighting 5.00 5.00 - 5.00 Fencing 3.38 4.20 5.00 4.19 Disabled access 3.63 3.30 4.50 3.81 Health and safety 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 AVERAGE 3.80 4.24 4.63 4.25
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 57 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
5.20 Tennis courts in the Borough as a whole have an overall mean score of well above average for all the assessed criteria. The only individual site that is rated below average is Parsloes Park.
5.21 Bowling Greens: The table below details the average scores allocated for the bowling green quality criteria, including an overall mean for the criteria, in each sub-area in the Borough, to enable comparisons to be made:
Table 35: Bowling Green Quality Scores by Sub-Area
Quality Criteria Barking Dagenham Chadwell Heath AVERAGE Sub-Area Sub-Area Sub-Area Playing surface 4.00 3.50 4.00 3.83 Pavilion/changing 2.50 3.00 4.00 3.17 Disabled access 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.17 Health and safety 4.00 3.50 4.00 3.83 AVERAGE 3.38 3.25 4.13 3.50
5.22 Bowling greens in the Borough as a whole have a mean score of above average for all the assessed criteria apart from disabled access. The facility in Central Park is the only one rated as below average.
Security of access
5.23 Introduction: One important factor in assessing facility supply is whether:
a) Provision is genuinely available for unrestricted community use.
b) It is subject to formal access arrangements that cannot easily be rescinded.
5.24 Sport England has produced a formal classification for access to playing pitches, which can also be applied to other forms of facility provision in Barking and Dagenham. The categories are set out in the table overleaf.
Table 36: Security of Access Classifications
Category Definition Supplementary information A(i) Secured Facilities in local authority or other public ownership. community pitches A(ii) Facilities in the voluntary, private or commercial sector which are open to members of the public.* A(iii) Facilities on education sites which are available for use by the public through formal community use agreements. B Used by Facilities not included above, that are nevertheless available community for community use, e.g. school facilities without formal user but not arrangements. secured C Not open for Facilities at establishments which are not, as a matter of community policy or practice, available for community use. use
* Where there is a charge, this must be reasonable and affordable for the local community.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 58 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
5.25 The number of facilities in each category in the Borough is detailed in the table below:
Table 37: Security of Access Classifications by Facility Type
Facility A(i) A(ii) A(iii) B C No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Senior football 50 72.5 7 10.1 3 43.4 9 13.0 0 0.0
Junior football 10 76.9 2 15.4 0 0.0 1 7.7 0 0.0
Mini-soccer 5 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Cricket pitches 0 0.0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
Rugby pitches 3 21.5 5 35.7 1 7.1 5 35.7 0 0.0
Gaelic football 1 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 pitches Synthetic turf 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 pitches Multi-use games 11 44.0 12 48.0 2 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 areas Bowling greens 7 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0
Tennis courts 14 43.8 3 9.3 9 28.2 6 18.7 0 0.0
Golf facilities 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
5.26 Facilities secured for community use account for 87.7% of all outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham. Whilst this figure is encouragingly high, there are some significant facility-specific variations, in particular 35.7% of rugby pitches and 18.7% of tennis courts are on school sites and are used on a non-secured basis.
Pricing and charging
5.27 Introduction: This section examines the prices charged for outdoor sports facility hire by the neighbouring local authorities, to establish whether there are any policy issues arising from variations.
5.28 The range of current prices for pitches and outdoor facility hire are as follows:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 59 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Table 38: Facility Hire Charges by neighbouring local authorities
Facility Barking & Newham Redbridge Havering London Dagenham Average Football pitch (Adults) £46.50 £54.50 £41.20 £45.00 £54.99 Football pitch £23.25 £27.50 £37.50 £21.00 (Juniors) Mini-Soccer pitch £11.50 £27.50 £41.20 £9.00
Cricket Pitch (Adult) £56.50 £38.00 £41.20 £52.00 £63.33 Cricket Pitch (Junior) £28.25 £38.00 £41.20 £26.00 Rugby pitch (Adult) £46.50 £61.00 £59.56
Bowling Green £2.60* £1.00 £3.00 £2.49
Multi-Use Games Area £15.50** £20.50** (Adult/Peak) Multi-Use Games Area £11.75** £15.00** (Adult/Off-peak) Multi-Use Games Area £8.50** (Junior/Peak) Multi-Use Games Area £6.50** (Junior/Off-peak) Golf (Adult) £2.00* £4.00* Golf (Junior) £2.00* £2.00* Tennis Court £2.00*** £4.00*
* Per person. ** Tarmac surface. ***For courts in Central Park (all others free).
5.29 Pricing trends: Whilst there are significant variations by facility type, in general terms the prices charged in Barking and Dagenham and Newham are higher than those charged in Havering and Redbridge. This almost certainly reflects a more limited supply of open space in the two boroughs closest to the centre of London and this is certainly borne out by the fact that Newham’s prices are generally higher than Barking and Dagenham’s.
5.30 In practice, those clubs in Dagenham and Redbridge that are able to exercise a choice are likely on cost grounds to seek to base themselves at a facility in Havering or Redbridge. Newham-based clubs are likely to do the same, only in Barking and Dagenham and most particularly in the Barking Sub-Area of the Borough, that is closest to Newham, but which also has the fewest pitches and outdoor sports facilities. This is likely to lead to additional demand and usage pressures in the Barking area.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 60 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Maintenance issues
5.31 Introduction: This section examines the ways in which pitches and outdoor sports facilities are maintained in Barking and Dagenham at present.
5.32 Grounds maintenance arrangements: The Borough Council has contracted the maintenance of its sports pitches and outdoor sports facilities to its Direct Services Organisation (DSO). A management specification forms part of the contractual arrangements, stipulating the works that are required and the quality standards that must be achieved. The Council’s maintenance regime generally works well and maintains good quality surfaces. However:
a) There are widespread problems on some sites, particularly Parsloes Park, with unauthorised use of pitches in parks. This includes both formal and informal sports play, but also anti-social behaviour such as ‘joy-riding’ on pitches. This causes substantial wear and tear to pitch surfaces, particularly in goalmouths.
b) A number of club users are critical of the frequent occurrence of broken glass, dogs mess and other hazards on Council pitches, which largely result from the difficulties of excluding other parks users from the pitch facilities.
c) The lack of irrigation on any of the Council’s sites makes some pitches prone to erosion.
d) The generally high levels of demand for the use of pitches and outdoor sports facilities means that recovery periods are often insufficient to effectively re-instate grass cover or to undertake other routine maintenance.
e) Pressure on maintenance budgets means that there are insufficient financial resources to maintain facilities effectively.
5.33 Pavilion maintenance: Maintenance of the Council’s pavilions is also contracted to its DSO, but discussions have recently been initiated with a number of clubs who use individual pavilions regularly for their home fixtures, to transfer the management and maintenance to them. The delegated management arrangements will make the clubs concerned responsible for the operation and repair of specific pavilions, in return for reduced or waived user charges.
Community use of education facilities
5.34 Introduction: Around 25% of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in community use in Barking and Dagenham are on education sites and schools are therefore clearly significant providers in the Borough. However, the survey of schools undertaken as part of the study identified a number of issues as follows:
a) Stock of outdoor facilities: Most of the schools in the Borough (in particular primary schools) have no on-site pitches or outdoor sports Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 61 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
facilities and are therefore dependent on provision in nearby parks.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 62 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
b) Potential for additional community use: Those schools with pitches or outdoor sports facilities were asked about their attitude to permitting additional community use in the future and the responses divided as follows:
Table 39: Summary of schools’ attitudes to future community use
Yes Don’t Know No • Jo Richardson • William Bellamy Juniors • St. Teresa’s Primary Community School • Trinity School • William Bellamy Infants • Dagenham Park School • Cambell Junior School • William Ford Junior • Thames View Juniors
5.35 Policy issues: Those schools with their own facilities offer the potential for developing additional community access, particularly since the majority of those surveyed are either positive or at worst equivocal about the prospect.
Summary of facility supply issues
5.36 The main issues relating to the supply of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham can be summarised as follows:
a) Dispersed provision: Playing pitch provision in many instances involves small numbers of pitches on single sites. If the 29 football pitches in Parsloes Park are excluded, the average number of football pitches per site falls to around two. Whilst this is a good way of delivering sporting opportunities on a localised basis, the maintenance of dispersed facilities is relatively expensive, compared with multi-pitch sites.
b) Geographical distribution: The Dagenham Sub-Area has a disproportionately high number of most facility types in relation to its overall percentage of the Borough’s population. There are a number of major pitch and outdoor sports facility sites located in neighbouring local authorities that are right on the Borough boundary and these attract extensive usage from clubs in Barking and Dagenham.
c) Pitch and changing facility quality: The analysis of the quality of playing pitches and changing facilities reveals the following:
• Pitch quality: The mean score for the Borough is well above average for all aspects of the quality of pitches.
• Changing quality: The mean score for all aspects of changing facilities equates to below average, with the size and number of changing rooms at most sites rating particularly poorly.
• Health and safety: The mean score for the health and safety of pitches and associated facilities is above average.
d) The quality of other outdoor facilities: The quality of all other types of outdoor sports facility in the Borough is rated as above average.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 63 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
e) Security of access: Facilities secured for community use account for 87.7% of all outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham. Whilst this figure is encouragingly high, there are some significant facility- specific variations, in particular 35.7% of rugby pitches and 18.7% of tennis courts are on school sites and are used on a non-secured basis.
f) Pricing and demand issues: In general, the facility hire charges in Barking and Dagenham and Newham are higher than those in Havering and Redbridge. This almost certainly reflects a more limited supply of open space in the two boroughs closest to the centre of London and this is borne out by Newham’s prices being generally higher than Barking and Dagenham’s. Clubs in Dagenham and Redbridge may therefore seek to base themselves in Havering or Redbridge on cost grounds and Newham- based clubs may do the same, only in Barking and Dagenham. The Barking Sub-Area, that is closest to Newham, also has the fewest pitches and outdoor sports facilities and this is likely to lead to additional demand and usage pressures in the Barking area.
g) Maintenance issues: Although the quality of pitches and outdoor sports provision in the Borough is generally good, the unenclosed nature of many facilities in parks means that unauthorised use is widespread and a combination of heavy usage and budgetary constraints means that quality is likely to suffer in the long term.
h) Community use of school facilities: Those schools with their own facilities offer the potential for developing additional community access, particularly since the majority of those surveyed are either positive or at worst equivocal about the prospect.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 64 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VI.
THE BALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 65 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VI THE BALANCE BETWEEN SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Introduction
6.1 This section uses the data from the previous sections to compare the supply of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham with demand, to identify surpluses and deficiencies in provision. It analyses provision for each of the sports included in the study, proposes local standards of provision and considers future changes in demand. As such, it comprises stage seven of Sports England’s Playing Pitch Model.
Football pitches
6.2 Senior pitches: The balance between supply and demand of senior football pitches in Barking and Dagenham is as follows:
Table 40: Supply and demand of senior football pitches
Number of pitches 69 Peak pitch demand 49 Surplus/(Deficit) 20
6.3 Junior pitches: The balance between supply and demand of junior pitches in Barking and Dagenham is as follows:
Table 41: Supply and demand of junior football pitches
Number of pitches 13 Peak pitch demand 29 Surplus/(Deficit) (16)
6.4 Mini-Soccer pitches: The balance between supply and demand of Mini- Soccer pitches in Barking and Dagenham is as follows:
Table 42: Supply and demand of Mini-Soccer pitches
Number of pitches 5 Peak pitch demand 18 Surplus/(Deficit) (13)
6.5 Summary: A summary of the surplus/(deficit) of football pitch provision in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below:
Table 43: Summary of supply and demand of football pitches
Pitch type Surplus/(Deficit) Senior (over 16) 20 Junior (10 - 16) (16) Mini-Soccer (under 10) (13) Total (9)
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 66 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.6 Sub-area analysis: An analysis of supply and demand of football pitches by sub-area in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below:
a) Supply relates to the number of pitches in each Sub-Area.
b) Demand relates to the peak demand for pitches in each Sub-Area.
Table 44: Supply and demand of senior football pitches by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 13 15 (2) Dagenham 33 24 9 Chadwell Heath 23 10 13 TOTAL 69 49 20
Table 45: Supply and demand of junior football pitches by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 5 10 (5) Dagenham 7 16 (9) Chadwell Heath 1 3 (2) TOTAL 13 29 (16)
Table 46: Supply and demand of Mini-Soccer pitches by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 1 5 (4) Dagenham 3 11 (8) Chadwell Heath 1 2 (1) TOTAL 5 18 (13)
Cricket Pitches
6.7 The balance between supply and demand of cricket pitches in the Borough uses aggregate age group demand, because seniors and juniors use the same pitches.
Table 47: Supply and demand of cricket pitches
Number of pitches 3 Peak pitch demand 6 Surplus/(Deficit) (3)
6.8 Sub-area analysis: An analysis of supply and demand of cricket pitches by sub-area in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below:
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 67 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Table 48: Supply and demand of cricket pitches by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 0 1 (1) Dagenham 2 3 (1) Chadwell Heath 1 2 (1) TOTAL 3 6 (3)
Rugby pitches
6.9 The balance between supply and demand of rugby pitches in Barking and Dagenham is set out below. Because seniors and juniors generally use the same pitches, the calculations have been made using aggregate age group demand. Because mini-rugby is played across half of a senior pitch, this has also been incorporated:
Table 49: Supply and demand of rugby pitches
Number of pitches 14 Peak pitch demand 5 Surplus/(Deficit) 9
6.10 Sub-area analysis: An analysis of supply and demand of rugby pitches by sub-area in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below:
Table 50: Supply and demand of rugby pitches by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 3 3 0 Dagenham 9 2 7 Chadwell Heath 2 0 2 TOTAL 14 5 9
Bowling greens
6.11 The balance between supply and demand of bowling greens in Barking and Dagenham is set out below. Demand is represented by the number of clubs in the Borough.
Table 51: Supply and demand of bowling greens:
Number of greens 7 Number of clubs 7 Surplus/(Deficit) 0
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 68 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.12 Sub-area analysis: An analysis of supply and demand for bowling greens by sub-area in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below.
Table 52: Supply and demand of bowling greens by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Supply Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Barking 3 3 0 Dagenham 2 3 (1) Chadwell Heath 2 1 1 TOTAL 7 7 0
Multi-Use Games Areas
6.13 In the absence of any detailed information on demand for, and usage of, MUGA’s in Barking and Dagenham, the assessment of the adequacy of provision is based upon a comparison with numbers of facilities per capita made by a sample of other local authorities. Because most informal usage of MUGA’s is made by young people, the assessment is based upon the numbers of under 16’s per MUGA in each local authority area.
Table 53: Comparison of numbers of MUGA’s per under 16’s in a sample of local authorities
Local Authority No. under 16’s per MUGA Dover 1,508 Barking and Dagenhan 1,531 Woking 2,629 Telford and Wrekin 2,930 West Lancashire 3,657 Waltham Forest 4,125 Harlow 4,202 Cherwell 5,520 Sunderland 5,614 Newhan 8,366 Leicester 8,925 Chester 10,901
6.14 Sub-area analysis: Comparison of numbers of MUGA’s per under 16’s in the Sub-Areas is contained in the table below:
Table 54: Per capita provision of MUGA’s by Sub-Area
Sub-Area No. under 16’s per MUGA Barking 773 Dagenham 3,661 Chadwell Heath 3,965 TOTAL 1,531
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 69 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Tennis courts
6.15 In the absence of any detailed information on demand for, and usage of, tennis courts in Barking and Dagenham, the assessment of the adequacy of provision is based upon a comparison with numbers of facilities per capita made by a sample of other local authorities. Because most usage of tennis courts is made by people aged between 10 and 45, the assessment is based upon the numbers of people in this age group per tennis court in each local authority area.
Table 55: Comparison of numbers of tennis courts per capita in a sample of local authorities
Local Authority No. 10 - 45 year olds per court South Kesteven 861 Dover 1,175 Bexley 1,952 Havering 2,634 Barking and Dagenhan 2,684 Waltham Forest 2,869 Newham 3,896
6.16 Sub-area analysis: Comparison of numbers of tennis courts per under 10 - 45 year olds in the Sub-Areas is contained in the table below:
Table 56: Per capita provision of Tennis Courts by Sub-Area
Sub-Area No. 10 - 45 year olds per court Barking 1,970 Dagenham 2,073 Chadwell Heath 12,625 TOTAL 2,684
Summary
6.17 The overall situation: A summary of the supply of, and demand for, pitches in Barking and Dagenham is contained in the table below. References to ‘surplus’ provision relate to peak demand periods and do not imply that any additional facilities are not needed to fulfil demand at other times.
Table 57: Summary of supply and demand for pitches
Facility Supply Peak Demand Surplus/(Deficit) Senior football 69 49 20 Junior football 13 29 (16) Mini-soccer 5 18 (13) Cricket 3 6 (3) Rugby 14 5 9
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 70 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.18 Sub-area analysis: The balance between supply and demand of pitches at sub- area level is set out in the table below. Bracketed figures indicate a deficiency:
Table 58: Summary of supply and demand for pitch facilities by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Barking Dagenham Chadwell Heath Senior football (2) 9 13 Junior football (5) (9) (2) Mini-soccer (4) (8) (1) Cricket (1) (1) (1) Rugby 0 7 2
6.19 Football: The overall situation can be summarised as follows:
a) Senior pitches: Whilst there is a large notional ‘surplus’ of senior football pitches, this is effectively eliminated by the deficit in junior pitches, with junior teams frequently playing on full-sized pitches. Despite the boroughwide ‘surplus’, there is an assessed deficit of senior pitches in the Barking Sub-Area, which reflects the combination of relatively dense population and few facilities.
b) Junior pitches: There is a large deficit of junior pitches in the Borough at present, although as outlined above this shortfall is compensated for by:
• Junior teams playing on senior pitches in the Borough.
• Teams playing on junior pitches on sites immediately beyond the Borough boundaries.
c) Mini-Soccer pitches: There is a substantial under-provision of mini-soccer pitches in the Borough as a whole and in all Sub-Areas at present. With the pressure on junior pitches, it is often not possible for mini-soccer teams to play on these larger facilities and several teams therefore have to play outside the Borough.
6.20 Cricket: There is a deficit of 3 cricket pitches in the Borough at peak periods on Saturday afternoons, evenly spread between the three sub-areas. Teams within the Borough are only able to meet their competitive needs by using pitches immediately beyond the Borough boundary (principally the Ford Sports and Social Club and Goodmayes Park).
6.21 Rugby: There is a notional ‘surplus’ of 9 rugby pitches in Barking and Dagenham at present.
6.22 Bowls: Demand for Bowls in the Borough is below the national average, based upon the proportion of club members in relation to the population over 40. The seven clubs in Barking and Dagenham are currently able to fulfil their training and competitive needs by using the seven existing greens, which suggests that supply and demand are effectively balanced.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 71 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.23 Multi-Use Games Areas: Levels of provision of MUGA’s per capita in Barking and Dagenham are the second highest for the sample of twelve local authorities examined and are almost three times higher than the average of one per 5,000 people under 16. Whilst there are disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with a geographical concentration in the Barking Sub-Area, the levels of provision in the Dagenham and Chadwell Heath Sub- Areas are also well above the national average, which suggests that demand is fully met at present.
6.24 Tennis: Levels of provision of tennis courts in the Borough at one per 2,648 people aged 10 - 45, are just below the average of one per 2,300 for the sample of seven local authorities examined. However, there are significant disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area poorly served with only one court per 12,625 people of tennis playing age.
Planning standards
6.25 Introduction: The assessment of supply and demand at sub-area level provides a detailed means of establishing the extent to which existing facility provision is adequate to meet local needs. However, a further helpful measure is an overall Borough standard of provision for each facility type, which has the additional benefits of being:
a) More straightforward to apply in a forward planning context, when changes in population are a consideration.
b) Easier to understand and to use as a mechanism for planning agreements with developers where appropriate.
6.26 Planning standards tend to involve one or more of the following:
a) A quantitative component (how much new provision may be needed, e.g. one facility per x,000 people).
b) A qualitative component (against which to measure the need for enhancing existing facilities).
c) An accessibility component (including distance thresholds and usage cost considerations).
6.27 National standards: For playing fields, the National Playing Fields Association’s ‘Six Acre Standard’ states that for every 1,000 people, 1.2 hectares of playing pitches should be provided. This is a useful national benchmark and is frequently adopted as a local standard in the absence of a detailed local assessment. However, PPG17 now requires local authorities to undertake detailed local assessments to provide evidence as a basis for developing a local standard.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 72 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.28 For other types of outdoor sports facility, a similar methodology can be applied, expressing a minimum standard in terms of the number of facilities per capita.
Barking and Dagenham standards
6.29 Quantitative standards: As a quantitative measure of provision local minimum standards have been calculated on the basis of dividing the space occupied by existing pitches by the resident population of the Borough. The ‘unit area occupied’ is the average playing size of a pitch of each type, plus an additional 60% space to allow for run-offs and safety margins on the pitch surrounds. This produces the following standards of current provision:
a) Playing pitches: Minimum standards are summarised in the table below:
Table 59: Barking and Dagenham minimum standards of pitch provision
Facility No. facilities Unit area Total area Area per occupied occupied 1,000 people Senior football 69 1.2 ha. 82.8 ha 0.51 ha Junior 13 0.7 ha. 9.1 ha 0.06 ha football Mini-soccer 5 0.5 ha. 2.5 ha 0.02 ha Cricket pitch 3 2.0 ha. 6.0 ha 0.04 ha Rugby 14 1.2 ha. 16.8 ha 0.10 ha Synthetic pitch 2 1.2 ha. 2.4 ha 0.01 ha TOTAL - - 120.6 ha 0.74 ha
b) Other outdoor facilities: Quantitative standards for other forms of outdoor sports facility have been calculated on the basis of the number of facilities in the Borough compared with the number of people in the age group that typically uses each facility type. Since there is no evidence of unmet demand, these figures can be rounded to produce a Borough standard:
Table 60: Barking and Dagenham facility per capita standards
Facility No. facilities No. facilities Rounded per capita standard Multi-Use Games Areas 25 1: 1,531 1: 1,500 Bowling greens 7 1: 9,558 1: 9,500 Tennis courts 32 1: 2,648 1: 2,500
6.30 Qualitative standards: Qualitative standards enable minimum quality criteria to be set, based upon the definitions applied by the quality audit. It is therefore recommended that all aspects of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the Borough, including changing provision, should be of at least the ‘average’ standard stipulated in the qualitative assessment system (see Appendix I).
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 73 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.31 Accessibility standards: Accessibility standards establish the effective catchment for the facilities (typically the distance/time that a minimum of 80% of users are prepared to travel to reach a facility). For local level community facilities like pitches and courts, 15 minutes travel time is a typical catchment and it is therefore recommended that this be adopted for the Borough.
Analysis of current deficiencies
6.32 Introduction: The following sections apply the analysis of supply and demand data and the recommended standards to the current levels of provision in the Borough, to identify existing shortfalls.
6.33 Quantitative assessment: The analysis of pitch provision is set out in the table below. Supply of, and demand for the other outdoor sports facilities are effectively balanced in the Borough and are therefore not listed as part of this analysis.
Table 61: Application of playing pitch spatial standards
Facility No. facilities No. facilities Current area Area required to Provided needed to meet occupied meet current current demand demand Senior football 69 49 82.8 ha 58.8 ha Junior football 13 29 9.1 ha 20.3 ha Mini-soccer 5 18 2.5 ha 9.0 ha. Cricket pitch 3 6 6.0 ha 12.0 ha. Rugby 14 5 16.8 ha 6.0 ha. Synthetic pitch 2 2 2.4 ha 2.4 ha. TOTAL - - 120.6 ha 108.5 ha.
6.34 The assessment shows that the net effect of notional ‘surpluses’ and deficits in provision is such that existing shortfalls could, as one policy option, be met by converting existing pitches of types that are assessed to be surplus to current demand (senior football and rugby) into those types for which there is a deficit (junior football, mini-soccer and cricket).
6.35 Qualitative assessment: The qualitative assessment of sites in the Borough identified the following aspects of facility provision to be below ‘average’ and therefore in breach of the qualitative standard:
a) Playing pitch sites: The following elements were sub-standard:
Table 62: Pitch site criteria assessed below average
Site Criteria assessed below average Greatfields Park • Health and safety Barking Abbey School • Changing room size • Officials’ changing
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 74 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Site Criteria assessed below average Barking Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Disabled provision Eastbury School • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing Barking and East Ham FC • Disabled provision Mayesbrook Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Disabled provision Barking Rugby Club • Disabled provision Castle Green • Pitch playing surface • Pitch levels • Health and safety Newlands Park • Pitch playing surface • Health and safety Barking College • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing Eastbrook School • Changing room size • Changing room number May & Baker Sports Ground • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Disabled provision All Saints School • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Disabled provision Central Park • Changing room size Parsloes Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Women’s changing • Disabled provision Robert Clack School • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing Jays Youth FC • Changing room size • Changing room number • Women’s changing Old Dagenham Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Women’s changing The Leys • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Women’s changing • Disabled provision Marks Gate Open Space • Pitch drainage • Health and safety
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 75 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Site Criteria assessed below average St. Chad’s Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Disabled provision Warren Sports Centre • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Disabled provision Sydney Russell School • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing Valance Park • Changing room size • Changing room number • Officials’ changing • Women’s changing
b) Bowls facilities: The following elements were sub-standard:
Table 63: Bowls site criteria assessed below average
Site Criteria assessed below average Parsloes Park • Pavilion/changing Central Park • Pavilion/changing • Disabled access
c) Multi-Use Games Areas: The following elements were sub-standard:
Table 64: MUGA site criteria assessed below average
Site Criteria assessed below average Barking Park • Fencing • Disabled access • Health and safety Mayesbrook Park • Fencing
Goresbrook Park • Health and safety Valence Park • Fencing
d) Tennis Courts: The following elements were sub-standard:
Table 65: Pitch site criteria assessed below average
Site Criteria assessed below average Barking Park • Fencing • Health and safety Parsloes Park • Playing surface • Lighting • Disabled access • Health and safety May & Baker Sports Ground • Disabled access
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 76 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.36 Accessibility assessment: With its relatively compact size and good geographical spread of pitches and outdoor sports facilities, nowhere within Barking and Dagenham is more than 15 minutes traveling time from the nearest provision. However, access to facilities by people with disabilities is an issue, with ten pitch sites, one bowling green, one MUGA and two tennis court sites judged as below average in this regard.
Future demand
6.37 Introduction: Sport England recommends that future demand levels should be modeled by applying two sets of analyses:
a) Applying the existing Team Generation Rates to projected increases in population, to give predicted numbers of teams at the relevant future date.
b) Applying a revised participation rate to the calculation (e.g. projected % increases in the overall participation rate.
6.38 This section applies both methodologies, to produce an estimated demand profile for 2010.
6.39 Applying TGR’s to population projections: The table below sets out the calculations illustrating the projected increases in numbers of teams by 2010.
Table 66: Application of TGR’s to the projected population in 2010
Team Type Current Current Future Team Future Age Group Teams Age Group Generation Teams Population (2005) Population Rates (2010) Senior football 34,125 136 39,001 1: 252 155 Junior football 7,037 57 7,894 1: 103 77 Mini-soccer 6,210 30 7,038 1: 207 34 Cricket pitch 48,972 34 54,268 1: 1,445 38 Rugby 43,676 22 49,531 1: 1,985 25
6.39 Applying projected increases in participation: ‘The London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’ has a target to increase participation in sport by 1% per annum. If this figure is applied to the TGR’s, to model the effects of an increase of this magnitude in the period to 2010, the results are as follows:
Table 67: Application of projected increases in participation rate in 2010
Team Type Current Team Projected Team Future Future Generation Generation Age Group Teams Rates Rates Population (2010) Senior football 1: 252 1: 240 39,001 164 Junior football 1: 103 1: 98 7,894 81 Mini-soccer 1: 207 1: 197 7,038 36 Cricket pitch 1: 1,445 1: 1,374 54,268 39 Rugby 1: 1,985 1: 1,888 49,531 26
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 77 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.40 Implications for pitch provision: The combination of increases in population and in overall participation rate will have the following effect on demand for pitches in Barking and Dagenham:
Table 68: Projected increase in demand for pitches in 2010
Pitch Type Future % Teams No. Teams No. Pitches Teams Playing at Playing at Needed at Peak (2010) Peak Demand Peak Demand Demand (2010) Senior football 163 69.1% 113 57 Junior 81 100% 81 42 football Mini-soccer 36 100% 36 18 Cricket pitch 39 35.3% 14 7 Rugby 26 52.6% 14 7
6.41 A comparison of pitch supply and peak demand in 2005 and 2010 is contained in the table below:
Table 69: Adequacy of pitches based on projected increases in demand
Pitch Type Current no. Current Current Future Future Pitches Peak Pitch Surplus/ Peak Pitch Surplus/ Demand (Deficit) Demand (Deficit) Senior football 69 49 20 57 12 Junior 13 29 (16) 42 (29) football Mini-soccer 5 18 (13) 18 (13) Cricket pitch 3 6 (3) 7 (4) Rugby 14 5 9 7 7
6.42 Future demand for other outdoor sports facilities: Future demand for other outdoor sports facilities can be modeled in a similar way, taking the existing per capita standards and applying increases in population and participation rate as follows:
Table 70: Application of per capita standards to the projected population in 2010
Facility Current Age Current Future Future Group Facilities per Age Group Facilities Population Capita Population Required MUGA 40,416 1: 1,500 41,939 28 Bowling Green 66,848 1: 9,500 74,984 8 Tennis Court 85,881 1: 2,500 91,036 36
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 78 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.43 Applying projected increases in participation rates produces the following:
Table 71: Application of projected increases in participation rate in 2010
Facility Current Projected Future Future Facilities per Facilities per Age Group Facilities Capita (2005) Capita (2010) Population Required MUGA 1: 1,500 1: 1,425 41,939 29 Bowling Green 1: 9,500 1: 9,048 74,984 8 Tennis Court 1: 2,500 1: 2,357 91,036 39
6.44 Implications for outdoor facilities provision: These are summarised in the table below:
Table 72: Implications of projected increases in demand in 2010
Facility Current no. Facilities Projected Future Facilities Required MUGA 25 29 Bowling Green 7 8 Tennis Court 32 39
Summary
6.45 Introduction: The balance between the supply of, and demand for, pitches and outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham is set out below:
6.46 Football: The overall situation can be summarised as follows:
a) Senior pitches: Whilst there is notional ‘surplus’ of 20 senior football pitches, this is effectively eliminated by the deficit of 16 junior pitches, with junior teams frequently playing on full-sized pitches. Despite the boroughwide ‘surplus’, there is an assessed deficit of senior pitches in the Barking Sub-Area, which reflects the combination of relatively dense population and few facilities. By 2010, there will be additional demand for 8 senior pitches at peak periods.
b) Junior pitches: There a deficit of 16 junior pitches in the Borough at present, which is set to rise to a shortfall of 29 junior pitches at peak periods by 2010. At present, the shortfall is compensated for by:
• Junior teams playing on senior pitches in the Borough.
• Teams playing on junior pitches on sites immediately beyond the Borough boundaries.
c) Mini-Soccer pitches: There is under-provision of 13 mini-soccer pitches in the Borough as a whole and in all Sub-Areas at present. With the pressure on junior pitches, it is often not possible for mini-soccer teams to play on these larger facilities and several teams therefore have to play outside the Borough.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 79 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
6.47 Cricket: There is a deficit of 3 cricket pitches in the Borough at peak periods on Saturday afternoons, evenly spread between the three sub-areas and set to rise to 4 pitches by 2010. Teams within the Borough are only able to meet their competitive needs by using pitches immediately beyond the Borough boundary.
6.48 Rugby: There is a notional ‘surplus’ of 9 rugby pitches in Barking and Dagenham at present, although this will reduce to 7 by 2010.
6.49 Bowls: Demand for Bowls in the Borough is below the national average, based upon the proportion of club members in relation to the population over 40. The seven clubs in Barking and Dagenham are currently able to fulfil their training and competitive needs by using the seven existing greens, which suggests that current supply and demand are effectively balanced. However, a combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for a further green by 2010.
6.50 Multi-Use Games Areas: Levels of provision of MUGA’s per capita in Barking and Dagenham are the second highest for the sample of twelve local authorities examined and are almost three times higher than the average of one per 5,000 people under 16. Whilst there are disparities in provision between the three Sub-Areas, with a concentration in the Barking Sub-Area, the levels of provision in the Dagenham and Chadwell Heath Sub-Areas are also well above the national average, which suggests that demand is fully met at present. However, a combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for an additional 4 MUGA’s by 2010.
6.51 Tennis: Levels of provision of tennis courts in the Borough at one per 2,648 people aged 10 - 45, are just below the average of one per 2,300 for the sample of seven local authorities examined. However, there are significant disparities in levels of provision between the three Sub-Areas, with the Chadwell Heath Sub-Area poorly served with only one court per 12,625 people of tennis playing age. The combination of population growth and increasing participation rates will create the need for an additional 7 tennis courts by 2010.
6.52 Minimum standards of provision: It is recommended that the following minimum standards of provision be adopted, to ensure safeguard the adequacy of existing and future pitch and outdoor sports facility provision in the Borough:
a) Playing pitches: A minimum of 0.75 ha. of playing pitches per 1,000 people.
b) Multi-Use Games Areas: A minimum of one MUGA per 1,500 under 16’s.
c) Tennis Courts: A minimum of one tennis court per 2,500 10 to 45 year olds.
d) Bowling Greens: A minimum of one bowling green per 9,500 over 40’s.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 80 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VII.
POLICY OPTIONS
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 81 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VII POLICY OPTIONS
Introduction
7.1 This section examines the policy options arising from the analysis of pitches and outdoor sports facility provision in Barking and Dagenham. It covers:
a) Options for patterns of facility provision.
b) Options for dealing with ‘surplus’ provision.
c) Options for dealing with deficiencies.
d) Changing and related facilities.
e) Security of tenure issues.
f) Maintenance issues.
Patterns of facility provision
7.2 A number of options are available for providing facilities, the suitability of which will depend upon:
a) The overall number and geographical distribution of the population.
b) The hierarchy and standard of competitive activities.
c) Sports development initiatives.
7.3 Centralised provision: This model involves a concentration of facilities at a limited number of sites, it has the following advantages and disadvantages:
a) Advantages:
• Financial and other resources can be concentrated, enabling larger and better quality support facilities to be provided.
• Grounds maintenance can be undertaken on a more cost-effective basis.
• A number of sports development initiatives, including the FA’s ‘Community Clubs’ programme, depend upon a cluster of pitches to create a ‘critical mass’ of activity.
• The analysis of quantitative (spatial) standards in the Borough suggests a small ‘surplus’ of about 12 hectares of pitches at present, so some smaller sites could theoretically be lost without affecting peak demand.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 82 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
• Parsloes Park would provide a suitable location for developing a Borough Football Development Centre, with its combination of a central location (parts of it are located in all three Sub-Areas and large numbers of existing pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
b) Disadvantages:
• Concentrating facilities in a limited number of locations creates the need for more users to travel further.
• The scope for making any existing sites larger, surrounded as they are built-up areas, is extremely limited, particularly in the south and west of the Borough.
• Whilst there may be a notional ‘surplus’ of some pitch types at present, projected demand suggests that at least the current number of pitches and other facilities will be required to meet community needs by 2010.
• The concept of centralised activity for every sport is not a universal requirement. Cricket and Rugby in particular concentrate most development activity via their network of existing clubs.
7.4 Dispersed provision: This model reflects the situation in some parts of the Borough at present, with small numbers of facilities at a relatively large number of sites. It has the following advantages and disadvantages:
a) Advantages:
• Opportunities to play pitch and outdoor sports are accessible and local, maximising the potential for participation.
• Playing sport at a local level reinforces a sense of community.
• Singly provided facilities can be simpler to maintain through locally devised devolved management arrangements, often involving voluntary clubs.
b) Disadvantages:
• Single facility sites may limit the potential for club development, particularly junior and women’s teams.
• Changing accommodation is often sub-optimal (in a number of instances non-existent) and is less cost effective than larger pavilions serving multi-facility sites.
7.5 Hierarchical provision: This model involves the best of both the above approaches, with a limited number of ‘development centres’, involving a complex of pitches if appropriate at a central or nodal point defined by sports development needs, underpinned by dispersed, often single pitch sites, offering local participation opportunities.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 83 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
‘Surplus’ provision
7.6 Sport England’s preferred method of calculating whether there are sufficient facilities is to:
a) Identify the maximum number of teams/players wanting to use them at the busiest time (‘peak demand period’).
b) Establish whether there are too many or too few facilities to meet the peak demand.
7.7 By applying this calculation to pitch provision in Barking and Dagenham, a number of ‘surpluses’ have been identified for some types of facility and in some sub-areas. However, because of the fixed timing of many matches, some facilities may be used only at non-peak periods (e.g. for a Saturday league as opposed to the peak demand on Sunday mornings). On the basis of a peak demand calculation, facilities used only at non-peak times could, therefore, effectively be deemed surplus to requirements. Were they to be disposed of on the basis of this calculation, the team(s) using them may be unable to transfer their play elsewhere and would therefore be lost to the sport.
7.8 There is a strong case therefore, for regarding the facility ‘surpluses’ identified through the peak demand method with caution and not indicative that the facilities concerned could be disposed of, without detriment to sports provision in the Borough. Examination of projected demand levels in 2010 indicate that any current ‘surpluses’ will be eliminated by a combination of additional population and increased participation rates. This situation will be exacerbated further with proposed housing developments in the period after 2010.
Deficiencies
7.9 Quantitative deficiencies: Shortfalls in pitch and outdoor facility provision in Barking and Dagenham have been identified for some facility types and in most sub-areas. The main quantitative deficiencies are detailed below:
Table 73: Summary of outdoor sports deficiencies by Sub-Area
Sub-Area Deficiencies Barking • 2 senior football pitches • 5 junior football pitches • 4 Mini-Soccer pitches • 1 cricket pitch Dagenham • 9 junior football pitches • 8 Mini-Soccer pitches • 1 cricket pitch Chadwell Heath • 2 junior football pitches • 1 Mini-Soccer pitch • 1 cricket pitch
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 84 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
7.10 A number of options are available for meeting the above deficiencies:
a) New provision: Constructing entirely new facilities may be the only means of securing additional provision in the right location, but additional and more cost effective options include:
• Extensions: Adding a pitch (or pitches) to an existing pitch site, through revising the layout of the existing pitches or converting under- used senior football pitches to junior or mini-soccer pitches.
• Planning agreements: Obtaining a financial contribution from a developer, to provide new facilities to compensate for the loss of an existing facility or an influx of population creating additional demand. The Team Generation Rates and per capita standards produced for this study can be used to demonstrate the numbers of additional people required to generate an additional team/facility demand.
b) Conversion: Where there is clear evidence that use of an existing facility has been discontinued, conversion to a facility type for which deficiencies have been identified would be a cost effective means of making provision. Examples include the conversion of unused:
• Senior football pitches to junior/Mini-Soccer pitches.
• Tennis courts into Multi-use Games Areas.
c) Improved capacity: Improvements to the playing surface and drainage of a facility will enable it to accommodate more play and may be as effective (and cheaper) than providing an entirely new facility. The provision of floodlighting has a similarly beneficial effect on usage capacity. However:
• Improved facility capacity often only provides additional use at non- peak periods and therefore has little impact on increasing usage at peak demand periods.
• There may be planning sensitivities over the installation of floodlighting.
• Floodlights only improve capacity where playing surfaces are of good enough quality to accommodate the additional play.
d) Staggered start times: Peak demand periods are often created by governing body or individual league stipulations on match start times. Where facilities are capable of accommodating more than one fixture in a day, the relaxation of specified match start times would help to reduce or spread peak demand.
e) Community use of education facilities: Several schools responding to the survey undertaken as part of this study indicated they would be prepared to allow community use of their facilities if current impediments could be overcome. Negotiating community access to existing education facilities
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 85 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
offers an attractive means of securing additional facility capacity, particularly if such use is regulated by a formal Community Use Agreement.
f) Multi-use of facilities: Since most of the deficiencies in tennis court provision are in rural areas, providing multi-use games areas with tennis markings would represent a good way of providing for the needs of other sports in addition, including training for pitch sport teams.
Changing and related facilities
7.11 The analysis of the qualitative aspects of pitches and outdoor sports facilities revealed that by far the poorest quality aspect of provision in general is changing provision. In a minority of cases at some sites there is no on-site changing at all and in others the quality of various aspects consistently rates as below average. The areas scoring worst of all were provision for women and people with disabilities, which are of concern for a number of reasons, not least:
a) Women and girls are a major sports development priority in the Borough and if changing provision is deficient, efforts to increase participation and raise standards of play will be undermined.
b) From 2004, the Disability Discrimination Act gave legal force to the rights of disabled people to enjoy ‘reasonable access’ to all facilities used by able-bodied people. Very few changing facilities in Barking and Dagenham could accommodate such use at present. Specific improvements to disabled access that should be considered are as follows:
• Effective lighting, both within changing areas and on all external approaches.
• Pathways should be a minimum of 1.5m wide, with a maximum gradient of 5% (1 in 20).
• Any gates should have easy to use handles and catches.
• A range of seating should be made available, with spaces for wheelchair users.
• Signage should be embossed, colour contrasted and in braille where applicable.
• Dedicated parking provision should be made for disabled people and for community transport vehicles.
• Changing facilities should incorporate a dedicated unisex shower/changing area for disabled people.
7.12 Improving changing and related facilities should therefore be seen as a major priority. Various sources of funding are available for improvement projects,
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 86 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
including the Football Foundation and the Sport England Lottery Fund. In all, 24 sites have changing facilities whose quality is rated as ‘below average’ and therefore a prioritisation exercise has been conducted to identify: a) The facilities in greatest immediate need of improvement.
b) Facilities that that will serve the largest numbers of users.
7.13 On the basis of the above exercise, the following changing facilities were identified as priorities for improvement. Other lower priority facilities should be improved on a phased basis as resources allow.
Table 74: Priority changing facilities for improvement
Sub-Area Priority changing facilities Barking • Barking Park • Mayesbrook Park Dagenham • Central Park • May and Baker Sports Ground • Old Dagenham Park • Parsloes Park Chadwell Heath • Valance Park • Warren Sports Centre
Security of tenure issues
7.14 Facilities secured for community use account for 87.7% of all outdoor sports facilities in Barking and Dagenham. Whilst this figure is encouragingly high, there are some significant facility-specific variations, in particular 35.7% of rugby pitches and 18.7% of tennis courts are on school sites and are used on a non-secured basis.
7.15 The dependence on unsecured school facilities is a concern, because community access could be rescinded at any time, creating an immediate deficiency in provision. Efforts should therefore be made to negotiate formal Community Use Agreements with the schools concerned, to secure the long- term use of their facilities by external users.
Maintenance issues
7.16 The quality of the playing surfaces of pitches and outdoor sports facilities in the Borough is, in most cases, above average and this is clearly a reflection of the adequacy of the pitch maintenance regimes employed. However:
a) The pressures of use on most council pitches, combined with financial resource limitations is leading to a progressive deterioration, which needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
b) Clubs often depend upon the expertise of volunteer groundstaff, but such arrangements depend upon the continued ability to recruit new volunteers and many providers report difficulties in this regard.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 87 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VIII.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 88 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
VIII RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
8.1 This section outlines the main recommendations of the Barking and Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy.
8.2 Planning standards: Minimum standards of provision: It is recommended that the following minimum standards of provision be adopted, to ensure safeguard the adequacy of existing and future pitch and outdoor sports facility provision in the Borough:
a) Playing pitches: A minimum of 0.75 ha. of playing pitches per 1,000 people.
b) Multi-Use Games Areas: A minimum of one MUGA per 1,500 under 16’s.
c) Tennis Courts: A minimum of one tennis court per 2,500 10 to 45 year olds.
d) Bowling Greens: A minimum of one bowling green per 9,500 over 40’s.
8.3 Quantitative deficiencies: It is recommended that the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and other local facility providers should seek to eliminate the identified deficiencies in the provision of playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities at Borough and sub-area level, through a combination of:
a) New facilities (including extensions to existing provision and developments funded through planning agreements).
b) Conversion of existing facilities (where usage of one type has been discontinued but there is evidence of demand for another type).
c) Improved capacity (where improvements to the playing surface and drainage increase the usage potential of a facility).
d) Community use of education facilities (where access to existing school facilities by the general community is secured).
e) Multi-use facilities (where deficiencies in tennis court provision can be met by providing multi-use games areas which also cater for the training demand of the pitch sports).
8.4 Qualitative deficiencies: It is recommended that the Council and all other providers should adopt a rolling programme of improvements to their playing pitches and outdoor sports facilities, such that all eventually conform with at least the ‘average’ standard set out in the quality assessment criteria in the strategy.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 89 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
8.5 Changing facilities: It is recommended that all facility providers should adopt a rolling programme of improvements to their changing facilities, such that all eventually conform with at least the ‘average’ standard set out in the quality assessment criteria in the strategy. Particular attention should be paid to:
a) Provision for use by women and girls.
b) Access and use by people with disabilities.
8.6 Priority attention should be given to those currently sub-standard changing facilities that serve the largest number of pitches/facilities, namely:
a) Barking Park.
b) Central Park.
c) May and Baker Sports Ground.
d) Mayesbrook Park.
e) Old Dagenham Park.
f) Parsloes Park.
g) Valance Park.
h) Warren Sports Centre.
8.7 Facilities hierarchy: It is recommended that a hierarchy of outdoor sports facility sites be established in the Borough, involving a ‘Football Development Centre’ in Parsloes Park and other sports-specific club-based developments where appropriate, in line with the current and future needs of the sports development programmes for each sport.
8.8 Security of access: It is recommended that formal Community Use Agreements should be negotiated with all schools where community access to their pitches and outdoor sports facilities is currently on an informal, unsecured basis.
8.9 Maintenance: It is recommended that Barking and Dagenham Council should:
a) Initiate a programme of re-turfing the worn areas of goalmouths and other high use parts of the playing surfaces of their pitches and outdoor sports facilities.
b) Co-ordinate the provision of grounds maintenance courses for clubs and organisations who are currently maintaining their own facilities.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 90 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
IX.
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 91 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
IX IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
9.1 This section sets out some issues arising from the adoption of the recommendations on standards of provision made in section 8. In particular we discuss the implications for provision to these standards arising from the projected growth in the borough’s population.
Future Population Growth
9.2 In section 8 we recommended that a number of minimum standards of provision be adopted of which the most important was that of a minimum of 0.75 hectares of playing pitches per 1,000 people. This is based on an assessment of current supply and demand and would safeguard provision at its present level.
9.3 Looking forward, however, this standard has significant implications for the use of land in the developments planned for the borough. These can be summarised as follows: -
Table 75 Land Required for Playing Pitches at the Recommended Standard within Proposed housing developments in Barking and Dagenham
Major site Number of Total no. Provision Proposed open dwellings people Required at 0.75 space provision Ha per 1,000 Lymington Fields 700 1,645 1.2 ha (3 acres) 2 ha. University of East London* 700 1,645 1.2 ha (3 Acres) S106 contribution South Dagenham 4,000 9,200 7.1 ha (17.4 acres) Undetermined Barking Riverside 10,800 25,380 19.0 ha (47 acres) 40% of the site Freshwharf 1,000 2,350 1.8 ha (4.4 acres) Undetermined TOTAL 17,200 40,220 30.3 ha (75 acres) -
* Projected figures only, no formal decision has been made on the site’s future.
9.4 The table shows that significant areas of land must be provided if the standard is adopted. We understand that at present no specific provision of playing pitches has been made in the drafting of masterplans and development briefs. The Council and its regeneration and development partners will, therefore, have to assess how best to make pitch provision within the context of the wider development objectives. On the one hand there will be a desire to maximize development value, on the other the desire to make social and recreational provision to ensure that true communities are created. With land values for housing being as high as £4.95 million per hectare (£2 million per acre), it is clear that providing recreational facilities will have major implications for the development appraisals taking place at each site.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 92 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
9.5 The Council, as the local planning authority, has a number of options available to it: -
a) Adopt the recommended standard for all new developments. This would ensure that there was a consistent approach to provision in all parts of the borough. It would also mean that facilities were available to the “new” population of Barking and Dagenham to enable delivery of local and national sporting and healthy lifestyle objectives. It would, however, mean that development mixes would need to be altered in the light of lower overall values created.
b) Make no provision in new developments. This would require the needs of the new populations to be met at existing facilities and sites in the borough and elsewhere. As most current facilities in Barking and Dagenham are used to the maximum at the most popular times, this would involve either a major shift in participation patterns or considerable unmet demand. Local and national physical activity objectives would not be met through this approach.
c) Adopt the recommended standard for current provision but adopt a different standard for all future developments. The standard of 0.75 hectares per 1,000 population is based on an assessment of current patterns of participation. With the national objective of doubling physical activity rates it is unlikely that these will decrease or be lower for the borough’s new population. However, there may be practical reasons why the borough wide standard may not be met in future developments. The council may, therefore, wish to consider adopting a lower standard for new plans. The difficulty will be arriving at such a standard in such a way that does not set a precedent and thereby jeopardise current levels of provision. Local and national physical activity objectives would be more difficult to meet through this approach.
d) Consider playing pitches on a development by development basis. This would have the advantage of being able to take local site conditions and other factors into account. However, it would create the problem of how to adopt a consistent approach to provision of facilities and the danger than such provision may be pushed further and further into the future. Local and national physical activity objectives would be more difficult to meet through this approach.
e) Adopt a lower standard across the borough as a whole. The council may wish to do take this approach but by doing so it would place existing facilities in danger of development. As there is no evidence of under provision this would mean displacing demand to pitches outside the borough. Local and national physical activity objectives would not be met through this approach.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 93 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
The Way Forward
9.6 Ultimately the adoption of any planning policies including standards for playing pitch provision are political matters for the members of Barking and Dagenham Council. It is for them to decide between the competing demands for resources and the potential mix of future developments in the light of social, financial, regeneration, health and recreational objectives.
9.7 Government guidance in PPG17 is that local authorities develop local standards of pitch provision based upon local needs, current patterns of participation and future development proposals. We at PLC are concerned that very little consideration has been given to facilities for outdoor sports in the major new developments in the pipeline. There is a danger, therefore, of inconsistency of approach across the borough which could lead to a lack of adequate provision and the possible loss of existing facilities.
9.8 We recommend therefore a twin track approach to development of outdoor sports provision in Barking and Dagenham. Firstly, the council should consider the findings of this report and agree an approach to pitch provision which both safeguards current facilities and at the same time makes proper account of future needs and makes appropriate provision within new developments. Secondly, the council should look to improve the quality of its existing facilities in line with the recommendations made in section 8 of this report.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 94 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
APPENDICES
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 95 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
APPENDIX I - FACILITY QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT MECHANISM
1) Playing pitches:
a) Playing surface:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full grass cover, no bare patches, no weeds, no obvious stones, would 5 facilitate high quality play. Above Almost full grass cover, small bare patches, isolated weeds, some visible 4 Average stones in places, would facilitate good quality play. Average Fairly full grass cover, larger bare patches, more obvious weed growth, 3 more obvious stones, surface could discourage good quality play. Below Average Fairly sparse grass cover, significant areas un-grassed, significant weed 2 growth, more stones, surface will definitely discourage good quality play. Poor quality Sparse grass cover, extensive wear in all parts of the pitch, extensive 1 weed growth and stones, surface would seriously compromise the quality of play and may endanger players.
b) Levels:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Pitch completely flat (apart from any constructed camber), no visible slope 5 within the playing area, would facilitate high quality play. Above Pitch has a negligible but discernible slope of less than one metre within 4 Average the playing area (apart from any constructed camber) and would facilitate good quality play. Average Pitch has a slope of around one metre within the playing area (apart from 3 any constructed camber) and could discourage good quality play. Below Average Pitch has a slope between one and two metres within the playing area and 2 will definitely discourage good quality play. Poor quality Pitch has a significant slope exceeding two metres within the playing area 1 and would seriously compromise the quality of play.
c) Drainage:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Pitch drains well with no evidence of puddling in any areas. 5 Above Pitch generally drains well but with some evidence of puddling in limited 4 Average areas. Average Pitch drains reasonably well but some evidence of puddling in areas of 3 highest wear. Below Average Pitch drains poorly with evidence of puddling in many areas. 2 Poor quality Pitch drains badly with evidence of puddling in all areas. 1
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 96 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
2) Changing provision:
a) Location of changing provision:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Changing provision is on site and within 50m of all pitches. 5 Above Changing provision is on site and within 100m of all pitches. 4 Average Average Changing provision is on site and within visual sight of all pitches. 3 Below Average Changing provision is off-site but within visual sight of all pitches. 2 Poor quality Changing provision is off-site and not within visual sight of any pitches. 1 No provision No changing provision on or off site. 0
b) Size of changing rooms:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Changing rooms significantly exceed Sport England minimum space 5 standards. Above Changing rooms marginally exceed Sport England minimum space 4 Average standards. Average Changing rooms conform to Sport England minimum space standards. 3 Below Average Changing rooms marginally fail to meet Sport England minimum space 2 standards. Poor quality Changing rooms significantly fail to meet Sport England minimum space 1 standards. No provision No changing provision on or off site. 0
c) Number of changing rooms:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Two changing rooms per pitch, readily capable of accommodating use by 5 male and female players simultaneously. Above Two changing rooms per pitch, with some capability for accommodating 4 Average use by male and female players simultaneously. Average Two changing rooms per pitch, but incapable of accommodating use by 3 male and female players simultaneously. Below Average One communal changing room per pitch. 2 Poor quality Fewer than one communal changing room per pitch. 1 No Provision No changing provision on or off site. 0
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 97 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Officials changing:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Dedicated changing for officials, with dedicated showers, and configured 5 for use by either gender. Above Average Dedicated changing for, without dedicated showers but configured for use 4 by either gender. Average Dedicated changing for officials, without dedicated showers and not 3 configured for use by either gender. Below Average No dedicated officials changing facilities, changing shared with players in 2 on-site facilities. Poor quality No dedicated officials changing facilities, changing shared with players in 1 off-site facilities. No Provision No changing provision on or off site. 0
e) Provision for women:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Dedicated female changing rooms and toilets. 5 Above Average Changing rooms which can be used by women’s teams whilst other areas 4 are being used by men’s teams and dedicated female toilets. Average Changing rooms which can only be used by women’s teams when other 3 areas are not being used by men’s teams and dedicated female toilets. Below Average Changing rooms which can only be used by women’s teams when other 2 areas are not being used by men’s teams and no female toilets. Poor quality Changing rooms which are unsuitable for women’s teams and no female 1 toilets. No Provision No women’s changing provision on or off site. 0
f) Disabled provision:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full disabled access throughout the building and specific provision of 5 dedicated disabled toilet and changing facilities. Above Average Disabled access to all key areas of the building, including dedicated 4 disabled toilet and changing facilities. Average Disabled access to most of the building, but no dedicated disabled 3 facilities. Below Average Very limited disabled access with no dedicated disabled facilities. 2 Poor quality No disabled access with no dedicated disabled facilities. 1 No Provision No disabled provision on or off site. 0
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 98 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
3) FLOODLIT MULTI-USE GAMES AREA(S):
a) Playing surface:
Rating Definition Score High Quality An entirely flat, non-slip surface with accurate line markings for all 5 appropriate outdoor sports. Above Average An effectively flat, non-slip surface with accurate line markings for most 4 appropriate outdoor sports. Average A reasonably flat surface, non-slip with appropriate footwear with line 3 markings for some outdoor sports. Below Average An uneven surface, with some cracks and slippery when wet, with limited 2 line markings for appropriate outdoor sports. Poor quality A very uneven, frequently slippery surface, with many cracks/holes and 1 with no line markings for outdoor sports.
b) Lighting of the sports playing area:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Strong lighting levels over the entire playing area, with no glare, 5 shadows or reflection to distract players. Above Average Adequate lighting levels over the entire playing area, with some slight 4 glare, shadows or reflection to distract players. Average Adequate lighting levels over the entire playing area, with glare, shadows 3 or reflection to distract players. Below Average Adequate lighting levels over the most of the playing area, with glare, 2 shadows or reflection to distract players. Poor quality Poor lighting levels over the entire playing area, with glare, shadows or 1 reflection that distracts players.
c) Fencing of the sports playing area:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Playing area fully enclosed by a high surrounding fence in good repair, 5 with lockable gate and perimeter rebound boards. Above Average Playing area fully enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 4 with a gate and perimeter rebound boards. Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 3 with perimeter rebound boards. Below Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in poor repair, with 2 no perimeter rebound boards. Poor quality No perimeter fence 1
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 99 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Disabled access:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 5 gates and a level or ramped paved path to the changing facilities. Above Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 4 gates and a paved path to the changing facilities. Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 3 gates but no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Below Average Limited disabled access to the playing area due to adequate width access 2 gates and no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Poor quality No disabled access to the playing area because access gate width is too 1 narrow, steps up to the playing area and no dedicated path to the changing facilities.
4) NON-FLOODLIT MULTI-USE GAMES AREA(S):
a) Playing surface:
Rating Definition Score High Quality An entirely flat surface in good repair with accurate line markings for all 5 appropriate outdoor sports. Above Average An effectively flat, non-slip surface with accurate line markings for most 4 appropriate outdoor sports. Average A reasonably flat surface, non-slip with appropriate footwear with line 3 markings for some outdoor sports. Below Average An uneven surface, with some cracks and slippery when wet, with limited 2 line markings for appropriate outdoor sports. Poor quality A very uneven, frequently slippery surface, with many cracks/holes and 1 with no line markings for outdoor sports.
b) Fencing of the sports playing area:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Playing area fully enclosed by a high surrounding fence in good repair, 5 with lockable gate and perimeter rebound boards. Above Average Playing area fully enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 4 with a gate and perimeter rebound boards. Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 3 with perimeter rebound boards. Below Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in poor repair, with 2 no perimeter rebound boards. Poor quality No perimeter fence 1
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 100 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
c) Disabled access:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 5 gates and a level or ramped paved path to the changing facilities. Above Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 4 gates and a paved path to the changing facilities. Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 3 gates but no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Below Average Limited disabled access to the playing area due to adequate width access 2 gates and no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Poor quality No disabled access to the playing area because access gate width is too 1 narrow, steps up to the playing area and no dedicated path to the changing facilities.
5) TENNIS COURT(S):
a) Playing surface:
Rating Definition Score High Quality An entirely flat, non-slip surface with accurate line markings for tennis. 5 Above Average An effectively flat, non-slip surface with accurate line markings for tennis. 4 Average A reasonably flat surface, non-slip with appropriate footwear with line 3 markings for tennis. Below Average An uneven surface, with some cracks and slippery when wet, with limited 2 line markings for tennis. Poor quality A very uneven, frequently slippery surface, with many cracks/holes and 1 with limited line markings for tennis.
b) Fencing of the courts:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Playing area fully enclosed by a high surrounding fence in good repair, 5 with lockable gate and perimeter rebound boards. Above Average Playing area fully enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 4 with a gate and perimeter rebound boards. Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in reasonable repair, 3 with perimeter rebound boards. Below Average Playing area mostly enclosed by a surrounding fence in poor repair, with 2 no perimeter rebound boards. Poor quality No perimeter fence 1
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 101 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
c) Disabled access:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 5 gates and a level or ramped paved path to the changing facilities. Above Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 4 gates and a paved path to the changing facilities. Average Full disabled access to the playing area, including adequate width access 3 gates but no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Below Average Limited disabled access to the playing area due to adequate width access 2 gates and no dedicated path to the changing facilities. Poor quality No disabled access to the playing area because access gate width is too 1 narrow, steps up to the playing area and no dedicated path to the changing facilities.
6) BOWLING GREEN::
a) Playing surface:
Rating Definition Score High Quality An entirely flat surface with uniform grass cover and regulation banks and 5 ditches around the perimeter. Above Average An effectively flat surface with almost uniform grass cover and regulation 4 banks and ditches around the perimeter. Average An effectively flat surface with wear around the ends of each rink and 3 regulation banks and ditches around the perimeter. Below Average A slightly uneven surface with wear around the ends of each rink and non- 2 regulation banks and ditches. Poor quality A significantly uneven surface, with non-uniform, worn grass cover and 1 non-regulation banks and ditches.
b) Pavilion/changing facilities:
Rating Definition Score High Quality On-site facilities with social area, separate male, female and disabled 5 changing facilities. Above Average On-site facilities with social area and male and female changing 4 facilities. Average On-site facilities with limited social area and changing facilities. 3 Below Average Some limited on-site changing facilities. 2 Poor quality No on-site changing facilities. 1
c) Disabled access:
Rating Definition Score High Quality Full disabled access to the green, including a wheelchair ramp and a level 5 or ramped paved path to the changing facilities. Above Average Full disabled access to the green, including a wheelchair ramp and a paved 4 path to the changing facilities. Average Full disabled access to the green, including a wheelchair ramp but no 3 dedicated path to the changing facilities. Below Average Limited disabled access to the green due to no wheelchair ramp and no 2 dedicated path to the changing facilities. Poor quality No disabled access to the green due to no wheelchair ramp and steps up 1 to the changing facilities.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 102 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
7) SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY: The following aspects of site health and safety should be considered and scored accordingly. Presence/absence of:
a) Hazardous equipment e.g. bent or corroded goalposts.
b) Hazardous materials on the playing area(s) e.g. dog fouling, broken glass, other sharp objects (metal/stones).
c) Unsafe playing surface e.g. holes, cracks in hard play areas, slippery or worn surfaces.
d) Unsafe changing facilities e.g. lack of non-slip floor in changing rooms/showers/toilets, inadequate storage of equipment.
e) On-site first aid kit and treatment facilities.
f) On-site fire fighting equipment, with instructions for use, signed emergency exits etc.
g) Access for emergency vehicles.
h) Secure perimeter fencing for the site.
Rating Definition Score High Quality All eight health and safety considerations have satisfactorily been 5 addressed. Above Average Six or seven of the health and safety considerations have satisfactorily 4 been addressed. Average Four or five of the health and safety considerations have satisfactorily 3 been addressed. Below Average Two or three of the health and safety considerations have satisfactorily 2 been addressed. Poor quality None or one of the health and safety considerations have satisfactorily 1 been addressed.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 103 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
APPENDIX II - LIST OF SPORTS CLUBS IN BARKING AND DAGENHAM
1) Football: a) Senior Men’s Clubs: • Alfred Athletic FC • Alliance United FC • Archers FC • Ascot United FC • ATOC FC • Aventis FC • Barking Borough FC • Barking Colts FC • Barking & Dagenham Police FC • Barking & East Ham Utd. FC • Baronsmere FC • Bassetts FC • Beckton Gas FC • Berwick Manor FC • Booyou FC • Brabazon Sports FC • Braybrook FC • Bridgehouse FC • British Rail Vets FC • Brockwell Rovers FC • Brook Town FC • Cambourne Wednesday FC • Cameo FC • Campion FC • Celtic Vigo FC • Chads FC • Chelten FC • Chester FC • Church Elm FC • Clack United FC • Claret FC • Claydon FC • Clockwork FC • Cottons Park FC • Cresta Park FC • Curzon ColtsFC • Dagchurch United FC • Dagenham & Redbridge FC • Dagenham Sports FC • Dalton Sports FC • Donnay Utd. FC • Drive Sport FC • Duckwood FC • East Ham Inter FC • Eindhoven FC • Elan FC • Emerhorns United FC • Essex Snooker Club FC • Euro Dagenham FC • Euro Stars FC • Evolution FC • Eyehurst Eagles FC • Ferns Seniors FC • Ford (Dagenham) FC • Ford (Dunton) FC • Freestyle FC • Gem Scorpions FC • Goresbrook Seals FC • Highgrove United FC • Holloway FC • Innercity Boys FC • Interlink FC • Jalani Runners FC • Jordan Athletic FC • Lacey Wanderers FC • Levett Road FC • Liberty FC • Linton FC • London Cranes FC • Los Galacticos FC • M&B Club FC • Morfdown Elect FC • North Romford FC • Old Barkabbeyans FC • Old City FC • Old Ludlows FC • Paragon FC • Pinewoods FC • Plastonia FC • Port of London FC • Real Sports FC • Romford FC • Rowham FC • Rushden United FC • Santiago FC • SFC Dagenham • Sibthorne FC • Southview FC
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 104 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
Senior Men’s Football Clubs (continued):
• Spartan Athletic FC • St. Andrew’s FC • Stag’s Head FC • Station Garage FC • Sungate FC • Talbot FC • Tamas FC • Teamwork FC • Toby FC • Unison FC • Upney Royal Oak FC • Vernon FC • Verona FC • Vivo FC • White Star FC
b) Junior’s/Mini-Soccer Clubs: • Ace Colts Youth FC • Albany Boys FC • Ascot United FC • Aztec FC • Bardag Youth FC • Barking & East Ham United • Barking Colts FC • Baronsmere FC • Bassetts Youth FC • Boca Rangers JFC • Capital Youth FC • Clarion Utd. FC • Clockwork FC • Cobra FC • Dagenham & Redbridge FC • Dagenham United FC • Dagknights FC • Eclipse FC • Euro Dagenham FC • Highbury Colts FC • Jays Youth FC • Jets FC • Leys Park FC • Phoenix FC • Raiders FC • Roneo Colts FC • Sennic Park Rangers FC • Team Armada FC • Valence United FC
c) Ladies Clubs: • Barking Ladies FC
d) Girl’s Clubs: • Sennic Park Rangers FC • Team Armada FC • Valence United FC
2) Cricket: • Barking Cricket Club • Chadwell Heath Cricket Club • Goresbrook Cricket Club • May & Baker Cricket Club
3) Rugby: • Barking Rugby Club • Dagenham Rugby Club • May & Baker Rugby Club
4) Bowls: • Barking Bowls Club • Dagenham Central Ladies Bowls Club • Dagenham Central Bowls Club • Royal British Legion Bowls Club • Old Dagenham Park Club • St. Chad’s Park Bowls Club • Parsloes Park Bowls Club
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 105 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
APPENDIX III BARKING AND DAGENHAM PITCH AND OUTDOOR SPORTS FACILITY QUALITY SCORES PLAYING PITCHES
1) Barking Sub-area:
a) Abbey ward: No provision.
b) Eastbury ward: No provision.
c) Gascoigne ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Barking Burges Rd., 1 Junior Football Yes 2.5 3 3 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 Recreation Barking Ground * Greatfields Greatfields Rd., 1 Adult Football No 4 3.5 3 ------2 Park Barking
* Site located close to the ward boundary in the London Borough of Newham.
d) Longbridge ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Barking Woodbridge 1 Adult Football Yes 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 5 5 4 Abbey School Rd., Barking Barking Park Longbridge Rd., 3 Adult Football Yes 3 3 3 5 1 1 2 3 1 3 Barking Eastbury Rosslyn Rd., 1 Adult Football Yes 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 4 3 4 School Barking 1 Junior Football
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 107 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
e) Mayesbrook ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Barking & East Lodge Avenue, 1 Adult Football Yes 5 5 5 5 2 4 5 4 1.5 5 Ham FC Barking Mayesbrook Lodge Avenue, 4 Adult Football Yes 3 3.5 3 3.5 1 1 2 4 2 3 Park Barking 2 Junior Football Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue, 14 Adult Football Yes 3.5 4 3.5 4 2 2 4 2 2 3 Barking 1 Mini-Soccer
f) Thames ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Barking Gale Street, 3 Rugby Pitches Yes 4 5 4 4.5 4.5 4 5 3 2 4 Rugby Club Barking Castle Green Goresbrook Rd., 1 Adult Football No 2 2.5 3 ------2 Barking Newlands Park Roxwell Rd., 1 Mini-Soccer No 1 4 4 ------2 Barking Thames View Bastable Ave., 1 Adult Football No 4 4 3 ------3 Playing Fields Barking
2) Dagenham Sub-Area:
a) Alibon ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue, 4 Adult Football Yes 3.5 4 3.5 4 2 2 4 2 2 3 Barking 5 Junior Football 3 Mini-Soccer
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 108 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
b) Eastbrook ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Barking Dagenham Rd., 1 Adult Football Yes 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 College Dagenham Dagenham & Victoria Rd., 1 Adult Football Yes 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 3 4 4 Redbridge FC Dagenham Eastbrook Dagenham Rd., 4 Adult Football Yes 3 4 3 3.5 2 1 4 5 5 4 School Dagenham 2 Rugby Pitches May & Baker Dagenham Rd., 8 Adult Yes 4 4 4 4.5 2 1 2 3 1 4 Sports Ground Dagenham Football 2 Cricket Pitches 2 Rugby Pitches
c) Goresbrook ward: No provision.
d) Heath ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e All Saints Terling Rd., 2 Adult Football Yes 3 4 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 4 School Dagenham Central Park Wood Lane, 6 Adult Football Yes 3.5 4 4 5 2 3 2.5 3 3.5 4 Dagenham 2 Rugby Pitches Robert Clack Gosfield Rd., 3 Rugby Pitches Yes 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 4 4 4 School Dagenham 1 ATP
e) River ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Jays Youth FC Ridgewell Close. 2 Junior Football Yes 3 3 3 4 1 2 2 3.5 4 3 Dagenham
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 109 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
f) Village ward: Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e MarksOld Dagenham Gate WhaleboneBallards Rd., Lane 15 JuniorAdult FootFootbal bal ll YesNo 34 3.54 32 4- 2.5- 2- 5- 2.5- 4- 24 OpenPark Space North,Dagenham 1 Gaelic Football The Leys ChadwellBallards Rd., Heath 5 Adult Football Yes 3 3.5 3 4.5 1.5 1 2 2.5 0 4 St. Chad’s Park DagenhamAlexandra Rd., 2 Adult Football Yes 4 4 3 4.5 2 2 4 3 2 4 Chadwell Heath Warren Sports Whalebone Lane 1 Adult Football Yes 4 4 3 4 1 1 2 4 1 4 Centre North, 1 Rugby Pitch Chadwell Heath 1 ATP 1 Cricket Pitch
3) Chadwell Heath Sub-Area:
a) Becontree ward: No provision.
b) Chadwell Heath ward:
c) Parsloes ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue, 2 Junior Football Yes 3.5 4 3.5 4 2 2 4 2 2 3 Barking 1 Rugby Pitch Sydney Russell Parsloes Avenue, 2 Adult Football Yes 3.5 5 3.5 4 2 1 2 5 3.5 4 School Barking
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 110 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Valence ward:
Site Address Pitches Changing Playing Pitch Pitch Changing Changing Changing Officials Women’s Disabled Health & Surfac Levels Drainage Location Size Number Changing Provision Provision Safety e Valance Park Becontree Ave., 4 Adult Football Yes 3.5 4.5 3.5 4 1 1 2 0 3 3 Barking
e) Whalebone ward: No provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 111 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
TENNIS COURTS
1) Barking Sub-area:
a) Abbey ward: No provision.
b) Eastbury ward: No provision.
c) Gascoigne ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Greatfields Park Greatfields Rd., Tarmac 1 No 5 - 5 4.5 4 Barking
d) Longbridge ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Barking Abbey Woodbridge Rd., Tarmac 6 Yes 5 5 5 5 4 School Barking Barking Park Longbridge Rd., Tarmac 6 No 4.5 - 2 4 2 Barking
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 112 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
e) Mayesbrook ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue, Tarmac 2 No 1.5 - 1.5 1 2 Barking
f) Thames ward: No provision.
2) Dagenham Sub-Area:
a) Alibon ward: No provision.
b) Eastbrook ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Eastbrook Dagenham Rd., Tarmac 3 No 5 - 5 4 4 School Dagenham May & Baker Dagenham Rd., Tarmac 3 No 4 - 3 1 4 Sports Ground Dagenham
c) Goresbrook ward: No provision.
d) Heath ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Central Park Wood Lane, Tarmac 3 No 4.5 - 4 3.5 3 Dagenham Robert Clack Gosfield Rd., Tarmac 4 Yes 5 5 5 5 5 School Dagenham
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 113 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
e) River ward: No provision.
f) Village ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Old Dagenham Ballards Rd., Tarmac 2 No 5 - 4 3 4 Park Dagenham
3) Chadwell Heath Sub-Area:
a) Becontree ward: No provision.
b) Chadwell Heath ward:
Site Address Surface No. Courts Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety St. Chad’s School Alexandra Rd., Tarmac 2 No 5 - 5 4.5 4 Chadwell Heath
c) Parsloes ward: No provision.
d) Valance ward: No provision.
e) Whalebone ward: No provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 114 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
BOWLING GREENS
1) Barking Sub-Area:
a) Abbey ward: No provision.
b) Eastbury ward: No provision.
c) Gascoigne ward: No provision.
d) Longbridge ward: No provision.
Site Address Playing Pavilion/ Disabled Health & Surface Changing Access Safety Barking Park (x2) Longbridge Rd., Barking 4 2.5 3 4
e) Mayesbrook ward:
Site Address Playing Pavilion/ Disabled Health & Surface Changing Access Safety Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue, Barking 4 2.5 3 4
f) Thames ward: No provision.
2) Dagenham Sub-Area:
a) Alibon ward: No provision.
b) Eastbrook ward: No provision.
c) Goresbrook ward: No provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 115 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
d) Heath ward:
Site Address Playing Pavilion/ Disabled Health & Surface Changing Access Safety Central Park Wood Lane, Dagenham 3 2 2 3
e) River ward: No provision.
f) Village ward:
Site Address Playing Pavilion/ Disabled Health & Surface Changing Access Safety Old Dagenham Park Ballards Rd., Dagenham 4 4 4 4
3) Chadwell Heath Sub-Area:
a) Becontree ward: No provision.
b) Chadwell Heath ward:
Site Address Playing Pavilion/ Disabled Health & Surface Changing Access Safety St. Chad’s Park (x2) Alexandra Rd., Chadwell Heath 4 4 3.5 4
c) Parsloes ward: No provision.
d) Valence ward: No provision.
e) Whalebone ward: No provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 116 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
MULTI-USE GAMES AREAS
1) Barking Sub-Area:
a) Abbey ward: No provision.
b) Eastbury ward: No provision.
c) Gascoigne ward: No provision.
d) Longbridge ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Barking Park Longbridge Rd., Tarmac 35m x 20m No 3 - 2 2 2 Barking Barking Park Longbridge Rd., Tarmac 35m x 20m No 5 - 5 4 2 Barking
e) Mayesbrook ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Mayesbrook Park Lodge Avenue, Tarmac 35m x 18m No 4 - 2.5 4 4 Barking Mayesbrook Park Lodge Avenue, Tarmac 40m x 20m No 4 - 4 4 4 Barking Mayesbrook Park Lodge Avenue, Tarmac 40m x 20m No 4 - 4 4 4 Barking Parsloes Park Parsloes Avenue., Tarmac 33m x 18m No 5 - 5 4 4 Barking
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 117 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
f) Thames ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Goals Soccer Ripple Rd., Synthetic 33m x 18m (x9) Yes 5 5 5 4 4 Centre Barking Turf 50m x 30m (x2) Thames View Bastable Ave., Tarmac 36m x 18m Yes 5 5 5 5 4 Playing Fields Barking
2) Dagenham Sub-Area:
a) Alibon ward: No provision.
b) Eastbrook ward: No provision.
c) Goresbrook ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Goresbrook Park Dagenham Ave., Tarmac 35m x 20m No 3.5 - 3 3 2 Dagenham Goresbrook Park Dagenham Ave., Tarmac 35m x 18m No 3.5 - 3 3 2 Dagenham
d) Heath ward: No provision.
e) River ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Jays Youth FC Ridgewell Close. Synthetic 30m x 25m Yes 4 3 3 3 4 Dagenham Turf
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 118 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy
f) Village ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Old Dagenham Ballards Rd., Tarmac 40m x 40m No 5 - 3 4.5 4 Park Dagenham
3) Chadwell Heath Sub-Area:
a) Becontree ward: No provision.
b) Chadwell Heath ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Warren Sports Whalebone Lane Tarmac 33m x 18m No 4 - 4 4 4 Centre North, Chadwell Heath Warren Sports Whalebone Lane Tarmac 33m x 18m No 4 - 4 4 4 Centre North, Chadwell Heath
c) Parsloes ward: No provision.
d) Valence ward:
Site Address Surface Dimensions Floodlit Playing Lighting Fencing Disabled Health & Surface Access Safety Valance Park Becontree Ave., Tarmac 32m x 16m No 3 - 1 3 3 Chadwell Heath
e) Whalebone ward: No provision.
Ploszajski Lynch Consulting Ltd. 119 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Strategy