BOURNEMOUTH AND POOLE
SPORTS FACILITIES STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN
2014-26
PLAYING PITCHES ASSESSMENT
DECEMBER, 2013
CONTENTS
Section Page
Introduction 3
Football 13
Cricket 102
Rugby 170
Artificial Grass Pitches 220
Appendix 1 Provision Standards 285
1
Introduction
This Playing Pitch Assessment report forms one of a suite of documents which provide evidence for or ‘sit behind’ the Sports Strategy for Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 1: Bournemouth and Poole Sports Strategy Documents
The report utilises information and data set out or referenced in the ‘sister’ documents to provide an assessment and analysis of existing playing pitch provision, demand and gaps in provision and the identification of future needs. It therefore provides the link for playing pitches between evidence collected through audits, surveys, consultation and data analysis and the Sports Strategy itself which will set out the strategic approach to sports facility and pitch provision in Bournemouth and Poole in the period to 2026.
3
Scope of Assessment
The typology for the playing pitch assessment is as follows:
Grass pitches used for football, rugby and cricket; Full size artificial grass pitches (AGPs) used for hockey and football (which can be partitioned to make a number of smaller pitches for smaller sided games or training); and, Smaller, dedicated, AGPs used solely for small sided football (e.g. 5 or 7-a- side).
The assessments which follow are set out to deal with grass pitches for football, cricket and rugby and then artificial grass pitches (as a type of pitch which is particularly relevant to hockey and informal football).
The assessment takes into account pitches which meet the following criteria:
Comply with minimum requirements and definitions approved by the national sports governing bodies (NGBs) of the respective sports (where relevant). This might include standards of quality, dimensions for competitive play, and so on; and,
Are generally available to the public (for ‘community use’), including those where membership of a club or organisation is a pre-requisite for access, provided that membership criteria are unrestrictive and the membership fees are not exorbitant. Pitches are considered where they are available to the community for all or part of the peak period of use. However, an understanding of pitches not currently available for community use or access are noted to be able to understand the role they could potentially play in supporting provision in the future.
- 4 -
Key Stages of Assessment
The assessment follows the emerging revised playing pitch guidance being produced by Sport England as closely as has been possible to do so given that the guidance was being developed at the same time as the audit and consultation on pitches in Bournemouth and Poole was taking place.
Specifically, the assessment focuses on the following areas of analysis for each type of playing pitch:
Current supply and quantity of existing provision; Quality of existing provision; Accessibility of existing provision (local catchment areas, cost of use, physical access, ownership, management and use constraints); Current demand and capacity of existing provision; Shortfalls / gaps in existing provision; Projecting future demand and needs; and, Identifying future provision requirements and standards.
Following assessment, the Sports Strategy will utilise the conclusions, setting out how best to respond to changes implied by analysis in the period to 2026.
It is important to recognise that this analysis and assessment does not consider commercial or competitive issues, but takes a fact-based strategic look at provision and existing and future needs and demand.
Responsibility for delivering improved and additional pitches and facilities
The assessment identifies both shortfalls in existing provision and demands and needs of sports in the period to 2026. While the development of the Strategy has been commissioned by Bournemouth Borough Council and Borough of Poole (with support from Active Dorset and Sport England) it is not - 5 -
suggested that any additional pitches or facilities proposed to fill identified shortfalls or future provision should be funded and delivered by the local authorities. The nature of sports facility and pitch provision has changed over the last decade or so with the role of local authorities now moving away from that of a provider and operator of facilities to that of a facilitator and enabler.
New pitches and facilities are most likely to be provided in partnership by local authorities, sports organisations, national sports governing bodies, the education sector / establishments, clubs, businesses and operators, or more commonly by a combination of one or more of these. Local authorities will play a key enabling and co-ordination role in planning for and delivering new pitches and facilities across their respective Boroughs. The same applies to the improvement of existing pitches and facilities, where management and / or ownership of existing facilities is no longer (or never has been) the responsibility of the Council.
Sources of Information
The main sources of information used for this assessment are:
The audit of facilities which takes a ‘snapshot’ of a pitch’s condition in terms of quality, quantity and accessibility (see the Audit Report). The audit has had contributions from and information verified (where possible) by the national sports governing bodies; The Sport England collated data from Active People Survey and illustrated by the Market Segmentation Tool; Stakeholder surveys (sent to clubs, schools / colleges / Academies, leagues and those responsible for maintenance of pitches to understand demand and needs as well as pitch condition) for those sports identified in the typology (see Consultation and Engagement Report); Stakeholder interviews, workshops and meetings (see Consultation and Engagement Report); User and Council resident surveys (where already available);
- 6 -
National Sports Governing Bodies (NGB) comments and priorities for their sport in Bournemouth and Poole; Local authority officer and Member (Councillor) views; and, Other sources of information as detailed in the Data Profile Report.
National Sports Governing Bodies
National Sports Governing Bodies (NGBs) play an important role in the overseeing development of and facilities for their specific sport. As stated in the Consultation & Engagement Report which accompanies the Sports Strategy, all relevant NGBs were approached during preparation of this assessment and strategy and given the opportunity to provide their thoughts on provision in Bournemouth and Poole. Where responses were received from NGBs, their key issues and priorities have been noted and taken into consideration in the assessments. Where an assessment does not have reference to NGB priorities or key issues, no response from the relevant NGB was received.
Sub-areas
Much of the data on pitches is listed and broken down into sub-areas within Bournemouth and Poole. This has been done to help provide more localised assessment than that provided at a Borough-wide scale if required at a later date. The sub areas comprise aggregations of wards and are as follows:
- 7 -
Figure 2: Sub-areas
Sub-area Wards reference
Bournemouth
B1 Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff
B2 Boscombe East, Boscombe West, East Cliff & Springbourne
B3 Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne
B4 Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park
B5 Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park
West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & B6 Iford
Poole
P1 Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town
P2 Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown
P3 Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney
P4 Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West
P5 Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood
- 8 -
Figure 3: Sub-areas mapped
9
However, sub areas are more helpful for Sports Strategy development in less urbanised areas where there are distinct settlements and catchments within a large area of land. These assessments, however, refer to areas of Bournemouth and Poole with which people are familiar more often than the more artificially constructed sub-areas, which it is considered is more helpful to those reading and delivering the strategy and action plan.
Provision Standards
Provision standards can be helpful to understand the quantity of provision (in terms of playing fields or facilities) that is available for the resident population and can also be used to establish approximate provision that should be made available to the growing population. The figures provide a measure of how much land area will be needed for new pitches across the Boroughs and can help to determine the appropriate developer contributions for on-site sports provision (where they apply) or appropriate contributions from community infrastructure levy (CIL) funds where relevant.
The figures provide estimated quantification of existing and future playing pitch and built facility provision for the Borough populations as a whole. However, provision standards have been relied on too much in the past as figures which can be taken to give a definitive answer to demand for a given population for facilities and pitches. As a result, recent playing pitch guidance and emerging built facilities guidance steers users away from reliance on standards and more towards a focus on utilising them as part of an overall strategy which can set out details which can be hidden by use of figures alone. Therefore, provision standards should not be used in isolation. The strategy and assessments as a whole should take precedence over the use of provision standards when identifying needs. The provision standards arising from the evidence considered in the assessments is presented in an appendix to this assessment.
10
Accessibility
Accessibility is an important issue, both for able-bodied people and those with a disability and local authority and other owners, managers and providers of facilities and pitches should respond positively to their responsibility to ensure that good access is maintained.
Sport England’s current strategy sets out its focus for the period to 2017 which is to increase regular participation in sport amongst young people aged 14 - 25 and disabled people. These aims encapsulated by Sport England are also translated to aims and objectives for specific sports through the individual strategies of the National Sports Governing Bodies (NGBs) and also tied to their funding from Sport England by setting targets for increasing participation rates for both able-bodied and disabled people wanting to take part in sport at all skill / ability levels.
This assessment and the audits which form the evidence which underpin the strategy have identified the existing facilities and pitches where there is a need to improve accessibility. Bournemouth Borough Council and Borough of Poole officers have the records from the detailed audits undertaken by their staff during the assessment process which can be used as a basis for establishing a programme of scheduled improvements.
All new facilities should be designed so that there is good accessibility and should follow design and access requirements for access outlined by the appropriate Building Regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act1. This will be a requirement on all new developments enforced through the planning system and building control processes overseen by the Councils as local planning authority and responsible authority for enforcing building regulations.
1 the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) requires service providers to make 'reasonable adjustments' to their premises to tackle any physical features that prevent disabled people from using their services. See the Planning Portal here http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/partm/approved#D ownload and the NHBC guidance note here http://www.nhbc.co.uk/Builders/ProductsandServices/BuildingControl/documents/filedownload, 40529,en.pdf for further information on the DDA and Building Regualtions (Part M). - 11 -
The importance of access goes beyond physical access to facilities and pitches to, for example, good coaching, joining clubs or getting informal access, ease of booking, an understanding of availability of facilities to play sport and provision of affordable sports opportunities. These issues are covered by this assessment and the principles and policy statements set out in the strategy.
- 12 -
Football
Introduction
Football has traditionally been played on grass pitches and the majority of matches seem likely to continue to do so in the short to medium term. Grass pitches, however, carry an on-going maintenance cost together with issues of ensuring their quality keeping pitches in public areas, for example, free of litter, ‘dog mess’ and vandalism. Particularly poor weather in recent winters has also led to cancellation of many matches and as a result of this and improving technology, the Football Association now sanctions competitive play for amateur leagues on some types of artificial grass pitches (AGPs) (3G football turf pitches (FTPs). However, there remains a significant role for grass pitches in accommodating the large number of teams and age groups wanting to play and will likely remain the key supply for play for the foreseeable future. This section of the assessment of pitches deals only with grass pitches used for football, with AGPs dealt with later in this report.
Information compiled in this assessment has been taken from a number of sources including an audit of pitch quality (undertaken by officers from Bournemouth Borough Council, Borough of Poole and Active Dorset), Active Places Power (Sport England) data, consultation with the Football Association (FA) and club and league surveys (sent out by the FA). Six leagues replied to the survey while there were 24 responses from clubs2. While the number of clubs responding was relatively low, the clubs that did respond represents a significant overall proportion of teams which play in Bournemouth and Poole and the FA was content that this represented a good return.
2 Leagues which responded were Bournemouth Hayward, Dorset Girls’ Mini Soccer and Women’s League, Bournemouth Youth and Dorset Premier. Clubs which responded and which are based in Bournemouth and Poole (some who replied have home grounds outside the Boroughs but play in Bournemouth and Poole based leagues) were AFC Bournemouth Ladies, Bournemouth Electric (Saturday), Poole Town FC Wessex, AFC Bournemouth Ability Counts, Westover Bournemouth, AFC Boscombe Albion, Hamworthy Recreation FC, Bournemouth FC, Dexter Sports FC, Hampton Matravers, King’s Park Dynamos, Greenfields YFC, Parkstone Athletic, Broadstone FC, Lower Parkstone CFC, Bournemouth Electric Youth, Trinity FC, Bournemouth Foxes, ECP FC. Some clubs responded more than once for different days / teams. - 13 -
Defining Pitches
As noted above, this assessment deals with grass football pitches. References to the various sizes of pitch which correlate with the age groups playing on them are made in line with the age groups and pitch dimensions outlined in Figure 4 below, reproduced from the Football Association guidance on pitch and goalpost dimensions.
Figure 4: FA guidance on pitch and goalpost dimensions
Source: FA Guide to Pitch and Goalpost Dimensions, 2012
NGB priorities and key issues
In Poole, the FA considers that there are generally sufficient pitches to accommodate demand from clubs, although some teams have recently had to find home pitches in Bournemouth and East Dorset.
However, the FA has suggested that due to the constraints of open space within the Borough, many of the pitches in Poole are perceived to be overplayed and / or suffer from poor drainage, to the detriment of their suitability and viability. There are also new challenges following the introduction of new pitch sizes to accommodate the new age groups identified in the table above. The FA has also suggested that the number of pavilions and changing rooms is improving, with many having been updated and refurbished in recent years, although there are a few pitches without provision where provision could improve the overall offer of the pitches. Notwithstanding these issues, tThe FA’s main priority is to see the delivery of a 3G pitch at the County Ground in Poole.
- 14 -
In Bournemouth, the FA considers that there are also a number of changing rooms in need of refurbishment. Its main priority, which will respond to many of the issues being experienced with grass and AGP pitches, is the delivery of the Slades Farm new and improved pitches and associated facilities.
The FA has suggested that a cap on the number of junior and youth teams which can play in the Youth League in Bournemouth is limiting participation, with one result being that a New Forest League has been established to help alleviate the position in Bournemouth. This could be due to a lack of access (perceived or real) to pitches or a limited number of people with limited time to be able to run a larger league (it is understood that the Youth League is run solely by volunteers).
Current Supply
There are currently 33 full size grass pitches in Bournemouth and 38 in Poole. These are supplemented by 4 youth, 4 junior and 19 mini dedicated pitches in Bournemouth and 9 junior and 12 mini dedicated pitches in Poole.
While there are relatively few dedicated non-adult pitches for use by the new structure of age groups, the plentiful supply of adult full size pitches means that it is easy (and generally acceptable by teams) to mark temporary smaller size pitches out across full size pitches. Layouts for marking out temporary (and permanent) small size pitches for age groups can be found in the “FA Guide to Pitch and Goalpost Dimensions”3.
3 See http://www.thefa.com/my-football/football- volunteers/runningaclub/yourfacilities/~/media/42e67e5df06c475c8be0bed035cd325b.ashx - 15 -
Figure 5: Number and size of football grass pitches (with permanent markings) in Bournemouth and Poole in community use
(including number of which are floodlit)
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Bourne Academy 1 Kinson Manor Playing 2 Fields
LeAF Academy 2
Pelhams Park Leisure 1 2 Centre
Sub-total 6 2
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Fern Heath Playing 2 Fields
Slades Farm Playing 6 Fields
Victoria Park 1 (1)
Winton Arts and Media 1 1 College
Sub-total 10 (1) 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Bournemouth Electric 1 2
Muscliff Park 2
Strouden Playing 4
- 16 -
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Fields
Bishop of Winchester 2 Academy
Sub-total 9 2
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College 1 1
Iford Playing Fields 4 (2 5v5 + 2 2 2 7v7)
King’s Park 5 2 2
Littledown Park 11
Sub-total 8 4 1 17
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Hamworthy United 1 Football Club
Poole High School 2
Turlin Moor Recreation 6 Ground
Sub-total 9
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Whitecliff Recreation 2 1
- 17 -
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Ground
Sub-total 2 1
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation 4 1 Ground
Rossmore Leisure 2 Centre
Wallisdown Playing 2 Fields **
Sub-total 8 1
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Ashdown Leisure 1 Centre
Haymoor School 1 2
Learoyd Playing Fields 1 2
Oakdale Middle School 1 (Poole 1 Town)
Sherborn Crescent OS 6
St Edwards School 1
Sub-total 5 5 6
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Canford Park Sports 4 1 3
Hamworthy Club 1
Bearwood Playing 1 (1)
- 18 -
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Fields
Cobham Sports and 1 (1) Social Club
Corfe Hills School 2
Fenners Playing Field 3
Haskells Recreation 1 Ground
Parkstone Grammar 1 School
Plainfields Farm 3 1 Recreation Ground
Sub-total 14 (2) 2 6
Bournemouth and Poole: All areas summary
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Bournemouth 33 (1) 4 4 19
Poole 38 (2) 0 9 12
Notes:
Figures in brackets denote number out of total supply which are floodlit.
** while Wallisdown Playing Fields are in the Borough of Poole, they are managed by Bournemouth Borough Council. Wallisdown Playing Fields included in Bournemouth summary figures as they are managed by Bournemouth Borough Council and not Borough of Poole.
Of these pitches in community use, we understand that all have ‘secured use’, i.e. a formalised agreement for community use for the teams and clubs which
- 19 -
use them. This is important to note, as pitches with community access with unsecured use can lead to loss of use of a facility and pitch at short notice.
In addition to pitches with community access, there are a number of other pitches where there is no community access, with most of them being on school, college and Academy sites. Figure 6 lists these sites.
Figure 6: Sites with no community use, no team allocated to use the pitch(es) or ‘use unknown’
Number, size and surface type of pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Bournemouth: sub-area 2
(Boscombe East, Boscombe West, East Cliff & Springbourne)
Bournemouth 1 Collegiate School
Sub-total 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Tregonwell Academy 1 (was Bicknell School)
St Peters Catholic 2 School (Lower School)
St Peters Catholic 1 School (Upper School)
Sub-total 3 1
- 20 -
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Hamworthy United 1 Football Club
Carter Community 1 School
Royal Marines Poole 1
Sub-total 2
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Bournemouth 1 Collegiate School Prep
Branksome Heath 1 Middle School
Sub-total 1 1
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Poole Grammar School 4
Sub-total 4
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Parkstone Grammar 1 School
Sub-total 1
- 21 -
Bournemouth and Poole: All areas summary
Number and size of grass pitches
Site name Senior Youth Junior Mini
Bournemouth 4 1
Poole 8 1
The location of these pitches, both with and without community access, is shown in Figure 7 below.
- 22 -
Figure 7: Location of Grass Pitches
Source: Borough of Poole
23
N.B. Map and key courtesy of Borough of Poole 24
Ownership and management type
A large proportion of pitch sites remain in public ownership and management or are managed through trust arrangements. While there are advantages in having public control of pitches (for example it offers a degree of protection from their loss), many are in public park or recreation ground spaces and so quality can be compromised by other uses. Conversely, an imbalance towards a greater proportion of commercially run pitches can lead to community users and teams being priced out of being able to afford the cost of hiring pitches for training in particular.
Figure 8: Ownership and Management of Pitches (community and non-community use pitches)
Site name Ownership Management
Bournemouth: sub-area 2
(Boscombe East, Boscombe West, East Cliff & Springbourne)
Bournemouth Collegiate Other Trust School
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
School/College/University Bourne Academy Academies (in house)
Kinson Manor Playing Local Authority Local Authority (in house) Fields
School/College/University LeAF Academy Academies (in house)
Pelhams Park Leisure Local Authority Trust Centre
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Fernheath Playing fields Local Authority Sports Club
- 25 -
Site name Ownership Management
Slades Farm Playing Fields Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Victoria Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Winton Arts and Media Local Authority Local Authority (in house) College
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Bournemouth Electric Sports Club Sports Club
Muscliff Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Strouden Playing Fields Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
The Bishop of Winchester School/College/University Other Academy (in house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
School/College/University Harewood College Academies (in house)
Iford Playing Fields Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Kings Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Littledown Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
St Peters Catholic School School/College/University Voluntary Aided School (Lower School) (in house)
St Peters Catholic School School/College/University Voluntary Aided School (Upper School) (in house)
School/College/University Tregonwell Academy (was Academies Bicknell School) (in house)
Site name Ownership Management
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
School/College/University Carter Community School Local Authority (in house)
- 26 -
Site name Ownership Management
Hamworthy United Leased to Dorset FA and Football Club Local Authority sub-leased to Hamworthy United
Poole High School School/College/University Foundation School (in house)
Royal Marines Poole MOD MOD
Turlin Moor Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Bournemouth Collegiate School/College/University Other School Prep (in house)
Branksome Heath Middle School/College/University Local Authority School (in house)
Whitecliff Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Rossmore Leisure Centre Local Authority Commercial Management
School/College/University Wallisdown Playing Fields Local Authority * (in house)
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Ashdown Leisure Centre Local Authority Commercial Management
Learoyd Playing Fields Local Authority Other
School/College/University Haymoor School Local Authority (in house)
Oakdale Middle School Local Authority School/College/University
- 27 -
Site name Ownership Management (in house)
School/College/University Poole Grammar School Academies (in house)
Sherborn Crescent OS Local Authority Other
School/College/University St Edwards School Voluntary Aided School (in house)
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
The Hamworthy Club Commercial Commercial Management
Bearwood Playing Fields Local Authority Other
Canford Park Sports Ltd Commercial Commercial Management
Cobham Sports and Social Commercial Commercial Management Club
School/College/University Corfe Hills School Academies (in house)
Fenners Playing Field Local Authority Other
Haskells Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Parkstone Grammar School/College/University Foundation School School (in house)
Plainfields Farm Local Authority Other Recreation Ground
Notes:
‘Other’ = schools, trusts, etc.
* Wallisdown pitches are leased to Bournemouth Borough Council by Borough of Poole.
- 28 -
Quality and Accessibility
A key part of the assessment has been a thorough audit of AGPs which have community access. The audit, which has been verified by the national sports governing bodies, is based on an on-site evaluation of the quality, quantity and accessibility of facilities, from which an overall score can be identified along with key issues relating to improvements needed. The report about the Audit which accompanies the strategy provides further detail about the process and content. However, in short, it has its basis in extant and emerging revised guidance on how to undertake playing pitch assessments. Figure 9 below identifies the scores from the audit of pitches, along with issues about quality or accessibility which may need attention identified by those undertaking the audit (officers from Bournemouth Borough Council, Borough of Poole and Active Dorset). Comments on quality and accessibility issues for specific pitches, where raised by clubs and the FA, have also been included.
- 29 -
Figure 9: Audit scores for community access pitches
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention (if any) rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 1 Standard 2 matches were cancelled on pitch 1 last season.
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 2 Standard 1 match was cancelled on pitch 2 last season.
LeAF Academy 1 Standard
LeAF Academy 2 Standard
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 1 Standard 1 match was cancelled on pitch 6 last season.
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 2 Standard Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include the overall quality of the pitches, quality of goals, larger changing rooms, discounts for block bookings of Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 3 the pitches, a need to re-seed pitches and grass to be cut. Standard 2 clubs said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity.
1 club has indicated that quantity of facilities limits their capacity.
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Fern Heath Playing Fields 1 Poor
Fern Heath Playing Fields 2 Poor
30
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention (if any) rating
Slades Farm Playing Fields 1 Standard 4 matches were cancelled on pitch 1 last season.
Slades Farm Playing Fields 2 Standard 4 matches were cancelled on pitch 2 last season.
Slades Farm Playing Fields 3 Standard 6 matches were cancelled on pitch 3 last season.
Slades Farm Playing Fields 4 Standard 5 matches were cancelled on pitch 4 last season.
Slades Farm Playing Fields 5 Standard 4 matches were cancelled on pitch 5 last season.
Slades Farm Playing Fields 6 Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include the overall Standard quality of the pitches and amount of dog mess.
Victoria Park 5 matches were cancelled on the pitch last season.
Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include dogs mess and a need to improve the quality of pitches. The quality of pitches has been rated as ‘poor’ by Good a club using them.
1 club said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity.
1 club has indicated that quantity of facilities limits their capacity.
Winton Arts and Media College 1 Poor
Winton Arts and Media College 2 Poor
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
- 31 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention (if any) rating
Bournemouth Electric Standard
Bournemouth Electric Good
Bournemouth Electric Good
Muscliff Park 1 Poor 2 matches were cancelled on pitch 1 last season.
Muscliff Park 2 Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include a need for Poor floodlights, availability of changing rooms and all weather facilities.
Strouden Playing Fields 1 Standard 3 matches were cancelled on pitch 1 last season.
Strouden Playing Fields 2 Standard 2 matches were cancelled on pitch 2 last season.
Strouden Playing Fields 3 Standard 1 match was cancelled on pitch 3 last season.
Strouden Playing Fields 4 2 matches were cancelled on pitch 4 last season.
1 club has indicated that accessibility to facilities limits their capacity. It has also suggested Standard that it would like to see the following things change: less dog mess, a better playing surface and better goals and nets. Floodlighting would increase capacity of the club and the quality and cost of pitches was rated as being ‘very poor’.
Bishop of Winchester Academy The FA has stated that the pitch slopes and is in need of levelling. Poor 1
Bishop of Winchester Academy Poor 2
- 32 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention (if any) rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College 1 Poor
Harewood College 2 Poor
Iford Playing Fields 1 Standard
Iford Playing Fields 2 Standard
King’s Park 1 Standard 8 matches were cancelled on pitch 1 last season.
King’s Park 2 Standard 7 matches were cancelled on pitch 2 last season.
King’s Park 3 Good 5 matches were cancelled on pitch 3 last season.
King’s Park 4 Good The audit identifies that pitches 1 and 2 are overplayed by authorised use.
King’s Park 5 Standard Pitches 3 and 4 are managed by AFC Bournemouth and accommodate 1 public fixture per week, which started in Oct 2013. King’s Park 6 Standard The audit has identified that pitches 5, 6 and 7 have uneven surfaces and suffer from dog mess King’s Park 7 Standard more than other pitches on the site. The changing rooms for these pitches are poor and are King’s Park 8 Standard containers with no toilets or showers available.
King’s Park 9 Standard Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include presence of dog mess and glass, the uneven surface, poor drainage and maintenance, age of the goal
posts, unauthorised play, a need for re-seeding, additional changing facilities for pitches 4 – 6.
- 33 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention (if any) rating
Clubs have rated the quality of pitches, toilets, changing rooms and overall quality as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’.
Local leagues have identified a need for new / vastly improved pitches.
2 clubs said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity.
Littledown Park 1 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 2 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 3 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 4 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 5 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 6 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 7 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 8 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 9 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 10 (mini) Good
Littledown Park 11 (mini) Good
- 34 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Poole High School 1 Standard
Poole High School 2 Standard
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 1 Standard Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include a need for an AGP. Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 2 Standard
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 3 Standard
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 4 Standard
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 5 Standard
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 6 Standard
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 1 Standard Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include the maintenance of the pitch and changing rooms. Whitecliff Recreation Ground 2 Standard
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 3 Standard
Poole: sub-area 3
- 35 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Ground 1 Standard The audit has highlighted that the pitches have very poor drainage.
Branksome Recreation Ground 2 Standard Pitch 1 had 8 matches cancelled last season.
Branksome Recreation Ground 3 Standard Pitch 2 had 4 matches cancelled last season.
Branksome Recreation Ground 4 Standard Pitch 3 had 12 matches cancelled last season.
Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include drainage, overall condition of the pitches, quality of the changing rooms (although officers at the Borough of Poole have suggested that the pavilion is of a good quality) and the lack of facilities and toilets when using the pitches for training.
Two clubs have rated quantity, quality, cost, toilets and changing rooms as ‘poor’ or ‘very Branksome Recreation Ground 5 Standard poor’.
2 clubs said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity.
It has been suggested that the pitches are over-used, a point with which the FA agrees.
The FA has indicated that there is a need to improve drainage at the site.
Rossmore Leisure Centre 1 Good
Rossmore Leisure Centre 2 Good
Wallisdown Playing Fields 1 * Standard 1 club said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity.
Wallisdown Playing Fields 2 * Standard It has been suggested that the pitches are over-used, a point with which the FA agrees.
- 36 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Ashdown Leisure Centre 1 Standard
Haymoor School 1 Standard
Haymoor School 2 Standard
Haymoor School 3 Standard
Learoyd Road Playing Fields 1 Standard The audit has highlighted that the pitches have very poor drainage.
Learoyd Road Playing Fields 2 Standard Pitch 1 had 10 matches cancelled last season.
Learoyd Road Playing Fields 3 Pitch 2 had 14 matches cancelled last season.
Pitch 3 had 14 matches cancelled last season.
Standard A club which uses the playing fields for training suggested that changing rooms and drainage need improving and that floodlights would be useful.
The FA has indicated that there is a need to improve drainage at the site.
Oakdale Middle School 1 Standard The audit has highlighted that there are drainage issues at the pitch.
Oakdale Middle School 2 (Poole The audit has highlighted that there are drainage issues at the pitch but it is being shortened to Good Town FC pitch) resolve the issues.
Sherborn Crescent OS 1 Standard The audit identifies that there are no changing facilities at the site. However, they pitches are
- 37 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating close to the leisure centre and therefore, no demonstrable need has been identified by officers Sherborn Crescent OS 2 Standard at Borough of Poole. Sherborn Crescent OS 3 Standard
Sherborn Crescent OS 4 Standard
Sherborn Crescent OS 5 Standard
Sherborn Crescent OS 6 Standard
A club which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include better drainage and maintenance of the pitch and lines. It has also suggested that the quality of pitch St Edwards School Good is ‘very poor’ and that they will go to a new home ground next season because of poor drainage. This discrepancy between the audit and club information could be explained by the audit being a snapshot of conditions on one particular day.
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Bearwood Playing Fields Poor
Canford Park Sports 1 Good The FA has indicated that there is a need to improve drainage at the pitches.
Canford Park Sports 2 Good
Canford Park Sports 3 Good
Canford Park Sports 4 Good
- 38 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating
Canford Park Sports 5 Good
Canford Park Sports 6 Good
Canford Park Sports 7 Good
Canford Park Sports 8 Good
Cobham Sports and Social Club Good
Corfe Hills School 1 Good
Corfe Hills School 2 Good
Fenners Playing Field 1 Poor The audit has identified that there is a portaloo on the site rather than permanent toilets. However, officers at Borough of Poole have suggested that little can be done to change the Fenners Playing Field 2 Poor situation on the site. Fenners Playing Field 3 Poor
Haskells Recreation Ground Standard
Parkstone Grammar School Standard
Plainfield Farm Recreation The audit has identified that the ancillary facilities are very small. Standard Ground 1 Clubs which use the pitches suggested that the things they would change include the need for a Plainfield Farm Recreation bigger car park and the uneven surface of pitches. Standard Ground 2 The FA has indicated that there is a need to level the pitches at the site. Plainfield Farm Recreation Standard
- 39 -
Overall Site location / pitch Key issues requiring attention rating Ground 3 1 club said that the quality of pitches limits their capacity. Plainfield Farm Recreation Standard Ground 4
The Hamworthy Club Good
Notes: * Wallisdown pitches are leased to Bournemouth Borough Council by Borough of Poole.
- 40 -
Other key quality and accessibility issues identified by clubs, leagues, local authorities and NGBs are identified below:
Of the leagues who responded to the league survey (Bournemouth Hayward Football Leagues, Bournemouth Youth Football League, Dorset Girls’ Mini Soccer League, Dorset Women’s League and the Dorset Premier League), all said they would be happy to play matches on an AGP surface; The Bournemouth Hayward Football Leagues, Dorset Girls’ Mini Soccer League, the Dorset Women’s League and the Dorset Premier League all said that, generally, pitches where there is currently no floodlighting would benefit from having them installed. This is a point re-iterated by a number of clubs which would like to train outdoors in months when there is less light but either cannot because of lack of capacity at AGPs (small and full size) or cannot because of cost of access to an AGP; and, AFC Bournemouth Ladies has indicated that it would like to develop youth teams but finding good quality facilities makes this difficult to achieve. The FA has suggested that with little land available to bring forward new grass pitches in the Boroughs, any additional provision will need to come forward through improvements to the quality of existing pitches to increase their carrying capacity and / or the installation of 3G surface(s) to accommodate matches, together with other measures to increase capacity of the existing stock.
Current Demand and Capacity
Participation Rates
Participation rates are a good indicator of demand. The Sport England Market Segmentation Tool can be used to identify the number of people currently playing football, as well as providing a picture of the number of people who do not currently play but would like to. Figures 10 and 11 show that, spatially, participation rates are reasonably high across Bournemouth and Poole at 5.1% - 10% with pockets of higher participation of 10.1% - 20% across south west central parts of Bournemouth. Numbers suggest that 9,778 residents in Bournemouth play football and 6,745 residents of Poole play. 41
Figure 10: Market Segmentation: People taking part in football in Bournemouth
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation tool, 2013
- 42 -
Figure 11: Market Segmentation: People taking part in football in Poole
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation tool, 2013
The segments of population types which play football the most are shown in Figure 12.
- 43 -
Figure 12: Segments of population which play the most football (number and % of resident football players playing the sport)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, Jamie 3,239 33.1 pints and pool
Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent Ben 2,135 21.8 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, Tim 1,666 17 buying a house and settling down with partner
Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, Philip sporty males with older children and more time for 976 10 themselves
Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy pub Kev 604 6.2 league games and watching live sport
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, Tim 1,502 22.3 buying a house and settling down with partner
Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent Ben 1,919 28.5 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, Philip sporty males with older children and more time for 1,036 15.4 themselves
Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, Jamie 1,006 14.9 pints and pool
Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy pub Kev 395 5.9 league games and watching live sport Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 44 -
Number of clubs and teams
According to the FA, in Bournemouth in the 2012/13 season there were:
91 affiliated clubs with a total of 181 teams, all of which play in Bournemouth and of which 96 (53%) are adult teams, 56 (30.9%) are youth teams (all formats) and 29 (16%) are Mini-Soccer teams; 36.5% or 31 of the 85 Youth and Mini-soccer teams play in a club that has achieved a Charter Standard Award as compared to a national average of 78.3%; and, the number of teams has decreased by 15 teams overall in Bournemouth from season 2011/12 to season 2012/13, which comprises a decrease of 7 adult team(s), a decrease of 6 youth team(s) (all formats) and a decrease of 2 Mini-Soccer team(s).
In Poole, in 2012/13 there were:
47 affiliated clubs with a total of 200 teams, of which 170 play in Poole; Of the 170 teams operating in Poole, 69 (40.6%) are adult teams, 65 (38.2%) are youth teams (all formats) and 36 (21.2%) are Mini-Soccer teams; 83.2% or 84 of the 101 Youth and Mini-soccer teams play in a club that has achieved a Charter Standard Award as compared to a national average of 78.3%; The number of teams has increased by 2 teams overall in Poole from season 2011/12 to season 2012/13, which comprises an increase of 3 adult team(s), a decrease of 5 youth team(s) (all formats) and an increase of 4 Mini-Soccer team(s).
The number of teams competing in leagues and how this has changed is also a good indicator of demand. In addition to the FA figures above, three of the leagues which responded to the survey (Bournemouth Hayward, Bournemouth Youth and Dorset Premier) have suggested that their number of teams has decreased in the last three years, with the Dorset Girls’ League, Dorset Mini
- 45 -
Soccer League and the Dorset Women’s League stating that their teams have increased. All of these leagues suggested that there is capacity to increase the number of teams. Both the Dorset Premier and Dorset Girls’, Mini Soccer and Women’s League have suggested that they expect the number of teams to increase in the next few years.
Of the 24 clubs across Bournemouth and Poole which responded to the survey, 13 said that their membership has increased in the last 2 years, while 7 said that it has stayed the same. 2 clubs said their membership has decreased and the remainder did not know.
Figure 13 below lists the clubs, teams and their home ground (or ground used most frequently as a home ground where no permanent designated ground has been identified for a team.
Figure 13: Football clubs, teams and ‘home’ pitch(es)
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Bournemouth: sub-area 2
(Boscombe East, Boscombe West, East Cliff & Springbourne)
Trinity F.C. First Bournemouth Collegiate School
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Senior Championship, Senior AFC Bournemouth League, U12 Championship, Pelhams Park Ability Counts U12 League, U16 Championship, U16 League
Bournemouth Youth U9 Elmrose Primary School Poppies F.C.
Bournemouth Youth U13, U13 Girls Oakmead School Poppies F.C.
Bournemouth Youth U14 Oakmead School
- 46 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Poppies F.C
Bournemouth Youth U10, U8 Pelhams Park (mini) Poppies F.C
Oakmeadians Youth U14 Girls, U18 Oakmead School F.C.
Old Oakmeadians F.C. First, Reserves Oakmead College
Shoulder of Mutton Saturday, Sunday Oakmead College United F.C.
Vienna Windows Reserves, First Kinson Manor Playing Field (Sunday) F.C.
Fun-a-side F.C. First (Friendlies) Oakmead College
Richmond Park Con Reserves, First Oakmead School Club F.C.
Harewood College F.C. First Harewood College
Kavell F.C. First, Reserves Oakmead School
Seyward Windows F.C. First Pelhams Park (AFC Springbourne)
Kinson Conservative First Kinson Manor Playing Field F.C.
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
New Star United F.C. First Slades Farm Playing Fields
Ace F.C. First Slades Farm Playing Fields
AFC Dean Park First Fernheath Playing Fields
Bearwood United Youth U16 Fernheath Playing Fields F.C.
Bournemouth First Slades Farm Playing Fields Community Church F.C.
Bournemouth Foxes First Slades Farm Playing Fields F.C.
- 47 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Bournemouth Youth U12 Fernheath Plating Fields Poppies F.C
Res – Sunday, Saturday, West Howe F.C. Fernheath Playing Fields Sunday
Bournemouth Youth U16, U18 Colts, U18 Poppies Victoria Park Poppies F.C.
Bournemouth A, First, Reserves Victoria Park (Saturday) F.C.
Victoria Park Royals First Slades Farm Playing Fields F.C.
Horse & Jockey F.C. First Fernheath Playing Fields
Living Home Tech F.C. First Slades Farm Playing Fields
Sportcuts F.C. First Slades Farm Playing Fields
Ensbury Park Rangers First Slades Farm F.C.
Gala F.C. First Slades Farm
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Bournemouth Electric A, First, Reserves Broadway Park (Sat) F.C.
Bournemouth Electric First, Reserves Broadway Park (Sun) F.C.
Muscliff Dynamos Youth U10, U8 Muscliff Park F.C.
Muscliffe F.C. First Muscliff Park
Bournemouth Electric U10, U11, U12, U13, U14, Broadway Park Youth F.C. U15, U16, U7, U8, U9
Magpies (Sunday) F.C. First Broadway Park
Bournemouth Veterans Vets Broadway Park F.C.
- 48 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Mploy F.C. First Strouden Playing Fields
Strouden Sports F.C. First Strouden Playing Fields
U10, U11 Girls Arrows, U11 Girls-Rockets, U12 (BYFL),U13 BYFL, U13 Girls- Boscombe Albion Youth Arrows, U13 Girls-Rockets, Strouden Playing Fields F.C. U14 BYFL, U15 BYFL, U15 Girls, U16, U18 Girls, U7, U8, U9
Intellihouse F.C. First Strouden Playing Fields
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
AFC Boscombe Albion First Kings Park
AFC Bournemouth First, Reserves AFC Bournemouth
ARC Cleaning F.C. First Iford Playing Fields
BCHA F.C. First Kings Park
Boscombe S A F.C. First St Peters School
Bournemouth Athletic First Kings Park F.C.
FC Boscelona First Kings Park
JPMorgan F.C. First Littledown Centre
Kings Park Dynamos First Kings Park F.C.
Kings Park Dynamos U12, U13, U14 Kings Park Youth F.C.
Royal Mail Bouremouth First Kings Park F.C.
Shamrock F.C. First Kings Park
Seabournes F.C. First Kings Park
- 49 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Moordown Athletic U10, U15, U7, U8, U9 Kings Park Youth F.C.
Talbot Rangers F.C. First Iford Playing Fields
Tavla Spor F.C. First Kings Park
Townsend Spartans First King’s Park F.C.
Westover Bournemouth Reserves, First Kings Park F.C.
Grove Tavern F.C. First Iford Playing Fields
ECP F.C. First Slades Farm
Hollies F.C. First Slades Farm
Rushmere F.C. First Slades Farm
Pig & Whistle F.C. First Slades Farm Playing Fields
Bournemouth: clubs where no home ground allocated*
Bourne Warriors Youth U15 Council ground not allocated F.C.
Notes: * some clubs playing in Bournemouth (and their teams) have no allocated home ground.
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Dorset F.C. U16, U18, U18 Girls The County Ground
Hampton Matravers U12, U14 Turlin Moor Recreation Ground F.C.
Hamworthy United F.C. First, Reserves, U18 The County Ground
Poole High School F.C. First Poole High School
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
- 50 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Fernside Sports F.C. First Whitecliff Recreation Ground
Harbourside F.C. First Turlin Moor Recreation Ground
KC Transport F.C. First Turlin Moor Recreation Ground
Baden Powell and St Peters Lilliput F.C. U10, U10 Athletic School
Lower Parkstone CFC First Whitecliff Recreation Ground
Colts Poole Town FC Wessex Whitecliff Recreation Ground Men
Poole Town FC Wessex U18, U18, U18 Colts Turlin Moor Recreation Ground
Oakdale Conservative First Turlin Moor Recreation Ground Club F.C.
Lytchett Red Triangle Disability, U14,U14 Girls Turlin Moor Recreation Ground Youth F.C.
First, Reserves, Sunday, U18, Poole Borough F.C. Turlin Moor Recreation Ground Women's
U10 Falcons, U10 Hawks, Baden Powell and St Peters Parkstone Heights F.C. U13, U14, U8 School
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Creekmoor Lions F.C. First Rossmore Community School
Bournemouth 2nd, 3rd, First, womens, Wallisdown Playing Fields (University) F.C. Womens 2nd
Bournemouth University c. 45 5-a-side teams Bournemouth University Intra Mural F.C.
Bournemouth University Wallisdown (or Chapel Gate, c. 20 11-a-side teams Intra Mural F.C. Christchurch Borough)
Bournemouth University First Wallisdown Playing Fields Staff F.C.
Branksome Railway F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
- 51 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Kings Arms Athletic F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
Kings Arms First Wallisdown Recreation Ground (Wallisdown) F.C.
Parkstone Athletic F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
Poole Town Youth F.C. U11, U12, U14 St Aldhems Academy
Rossmore and First Branksome Recreation Ground Parkstone F.C.
Rounders F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
Saints Academy F.C. First St Aldhems Academy
Canford Heath URC (The Beacon Church) First Branksome Recreation Ground F.C.
Sunnyhill F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
The Funky Peach F.C. First Branksome Recreation Ground
Redhill Rangers Youth U10, U11, U12, U13, U14, Harewood College (or LeAF F.C. U15, U16, U18, U7, U8, U9 Academy, Bournemouth)
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
U10, U12, U15, U8, U9, U9 Canford Heath F.C. Canford Heath Middle School Spitfires
Ability Counts Champ, Ability Dexter Sports Youth Counts League, U10, U11, Learoyd Road Playing Fields F.C. U12, U13, U16, U7 Training, U8, U9
Sturminster Marshall First Sherborn Crescent OS Under 8 F.C.
Pilot F.C. First Ashdown Leisure Centre
First Poole Town FC Tatnam Farm Reserves
Poole Town Ladies F.C. First, Reserves Tatnam Farm
- 52 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
U7, U8, U8 Rovers, U9 Colts, Poole Town FC Wessex Sherborn Crescent OS U9 Rovers, U9 United
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Arsenal Soccer Schools U10,U11, U12, U13, U7, U8, Canford Park Arena F.C. U9
A Team, B Team, First, A & T Athletic F.C. Haskells Recreation Ground Reserves
Redhill F.C. First Cobham Sports Ground
U10 Bournemouth, U10 Dorset, U11 Bournemouth, Branksome United U11 Dorset, U13 Canford Park Arena Youth F.C. Bournemouth, U13 Dorset, U14, U15, U16, U8 Bournemouth, U8 Dorset, U9
Broadstone Plainfield Farm Recreation First Conservative F.C. Ground
U10, U11 BL, U11 Colts, U12, U12 BL, U12 Colts, U14 BL, Plainfield Farm Recreation Broadstone F.C. U14 Colts, U15 DL, U15 DL Ground Colts, U8, U9, First, Reserves, U18, U18 Athletic
Dorset County FA Development Centres U12, U13, U14, U15 Canford Park Arena F.C.
Hamworthy Recreation First, Reserves Hamworthy Recreation Club F.C.
Merley Cobham Sports First, Reserves Cobham Sports Ground F.C.
Merley Cobham Sports U10, U9, U8 Fenners Playing Field Youth F.C.
Poole Town FC Wessex U10, U10 Colts, U10 Rovers, Haymoor School
- 53 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
U11 Colts, U12, U12 Colts, U12 Rovers, U13, U13 Colts, U14, U14 Girls, U15 Colts, U16, U16 Colts, U16 Girls
Talbot Pub F.C. First, Reserves Cobham Sports Ground
Role of shared use sites
While there is a good supply of local authority owned and / or managed pitches, the role of pitches on education sites remains important with a number of teams, particularly youth, junior and mini teams, using school, college or Academy pitches as their home ground. Those education establishments which do not open up their pitches and facilities for teams at the present time could play an important role in providing for growth in youth, junior and mini team play, if reasons why they do not currently open to the community can be overcome.
Temporal demand
Temporal demand for games indicates when the majority of matches are played. For football, most matches are played over the weekend and most Saturday and Sunday leagues have flexible start times on these days. Some leagues also have some matches played on a weekday evening.
Carrying capacity and balance of provision – grass pitches
The carrying capacity of a pitch is the amount of games that the pitch can accommodate and how many it should accommodate in relation to quality. This can be estimated using the data gathered on the number of teams which play on a pitch as their ‘home’ ground. Calculations can estimate for each pitch whether it is operating at over, under or at the appropriate level for the number of games played. Figure 14, taken from the new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, sets out how the carrying capacity is established. Figure
- 54 -
15 then sets out the carrying capacity for each pitch in Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 14: Method for calculating carrying capacity of pitches
How much play can a site accommodate?
Natural Grass Pitches Artificial Grass Pitches (Pitch quality rating x (Hours available in the peak NGB capacity guidance) period & surface type)
If appropriate adjust to reflect: 1. Educational use 2. Other local information and views
The amount of play a site can accommodate (its carrying capacity for community use)
Source: Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, Sport England, 2013
- 55 -
Figure 15: Number of Dedicated (Permanent) Grass Pitches, Games Played, Capacity and Rating
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 0.5
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 2 Adult Standard 2 1
LeAF Academy 1 Adult Standard 2 7
LeAF Academy 2 Adult Standard 2 5.5
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 1 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 2 Junior Standard 2 1.5
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre 3 Junior Standard 2 1.5
Totals 14 18.5
56
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Fern Heath Playing Fields 1 Adult Poor 1 1.5
Fern Heath Playing Fields 2 Adult Poor 1 1
Slades Farm Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Slades Farm Playing Fields 2 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Slades Farm Playing Fields 3 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Slades Farm Playing Fields 4 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Slades Farm Playing Fields 5 Adult Standard 2 0.5
Slades Farm Playing Fields 6 Adult Standard 2 0.5
Victoria Park Adult Good 3 3
Winton Arts and Media College 1 Adult Poor 1 1
Winton Arts and Media College 2 Junior Poor 1 1
Totals 19 14.5
- 57 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Muscliff Park 1 Adult Poor 1 0.5
Muscliff Park 2 Adult Poor 1 1
Strouden Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 2
Strouden Playing Fields 2 Adult Standard 2 2
Strouden Playing Fields 3 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Strouden Playing Fields 4 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Bishop of Winchester Academy 1 Adult Poor 1 1
Bishop of Winchester Academy 2 Adult Poor 1 1
Totals 12 10.5
- 58 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College 1 Adult Poor 1 1.5
Harewood College 2 Junior Poor 1 3
Iford Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 1
Iford Playing Fields 2 Adult Standard 2 0.5
King’s Park 1 Adult Standard 2 1
King’s Park 2 Adult Standard 2 1
King’s Park 3 Adult Good 3 1
King’s Park 4 Adult Good 3 0.5
King’s Park 5 Adult Standard 4 0.5
King’s Park 6 Youth 9v9 Standard 2 0.5
King’s Park 7 Youth 9v9 Standard 2 2.5
King’s Park 8 Mini 7v7 Standard 4 3
- 59 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
King’s Park 9 Adult Standard 2 3
Littledown Park 1 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 2 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 3 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 4 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 5 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 6 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 7 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 8 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 9 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 10 Mini Good 3 4
Littledown Park 11 Mini Good 3 4
Totals 63 63
- 60 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Poole High School 1 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Poole High School 2 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 1 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 2 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 3 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 4 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 5 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 6 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Totals 16 12
- 61 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 1 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 2 Adult Standard 2 1
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 3 Junior Standard 2 1.5
Totals 6 4
- 62 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Ground 1 Adult Standard 2 2
Branksome Recreation Ground 2 Adult Standard 2 2
Branksome Recreation Ground 3 Adult Standard 2 2
Branksome Recreation Ground 4 Adult Standard 2 1
Branksome Recreation Ground 5 Junior Standard 2 1
Rossmore Leisure Centre 1 Adult Good 3 1.5
Rossmore Leisure Centre 2 Adult Good 3 1
Wallisdown Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 2
Wallisdown Playing Fields 2 Adult Standard 2 1.5
Totals 20 14
- 63 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Ashdown Leisure Centre 1 Adult Standard 2 0.5
Haymoor School 1 Adult Standard 2 0
Haymoor School 2 Junior Standard 2 4
Haymoor School 3 Junior Standard 2 3.5
Learoyd Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 2 1
Learoyd Playing Fields 2 Junior Standard 2 4.5
Learoyd Playing Fields 3 Junior Standard 2 2.5
Oakdale Middle School 1 Junior Standard 2 1
Oakdale Middle School 2 (Poole Adult Good 3 2 Town FC pitch)
Sherborn Crescent OS 1 Mini Standard 4 1
Sherborn Crescent OS 2 Mini Standard 4 0.5
Sherborn Crescent OS 3 Mini Standard 4 0.5
- 64 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Sherborn Crescent OS 4 Mini Standard 4 0.5
Sherborn Crescent OS 5 Mini Standard 4 0.5
Sherborn Crescent OS 6 Mini Standard 4 0.5
St Edwards School Adult Good 3 1
Totals 46 23.5
- 65 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Bearwood Playing Fields Adult Poor 1 0
Canford Park Sports 1 Adult Good 3 1.5
Canford Park Sports 2 Adult Good 3 1.5
Canford Park Sports 3 Adult Good 3 1.5
Canford Park Sports 4 Adult Good 3 1.5
Canford Park Sports 5 Junior Good 4 1.5
Canford Park Sports 6 Mini Good 6 2.5
Canford Park Sports 7 Mini Good 6 1
Canford Park Sports 8 Mini Good 6 1
Cobham Sports and Social Club Adult Good 3 2.5
Corfe Hills School 1 Adult Good 3 1
Corfe Hills School 2 Adult Good 3 1
- 66 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Fenners Playing Field 1 Mini Poor 2 0.5
Fenners Playing Field 2 Mini Poor 2 0.5
Fenners Playing Field 3 Mini Poor 2 0.5
Hamworthy Club Adult Good 3 1.5
Haskells Recreation Ground Adult Standard 2 2
Parkstone Grammar School Adult Standard 2 1
Plainfields Farm Recreation Adult Standard 2 1 Ground 1
Plainfields Farm Recreation Adult Standard 2 1 Ground 2
Plainfields Farm Recreation Adult Standard 2 0.5 Ground 3
Plainfields Farm Recreation Junior Standard 2 5 Ground 4
Totals 65 30
- 67 -
Those pitches with overplay of less than 1.5 matches per week are summarised below. This amount of overplay, although potentially significant in the long-term, can be manageable and pitches with this level of overplay pose a lower priority for change than those with more significant levels summarised over the page.
Figure 16: Grass pitch sites considered to be slightly overplayed (weekly overplay of less than 1.5 matches)
Site name Weekly overplay of matches
Bournemouth
Fern Heath Playing Fields 1 0.5
Harewood College 1 0.5
King’s Park 9 1
Littledown Park (pitches 1 – 11) * 1
Poole
Learoyd Playing Fields 3 (Junior) 0.5
Notes: * While the pitches at Littledown Park have been given a ‘red’ rating, they have been identified by officers at Bournemouth Borough Council who maintain the pitches as being of good quality and with appropriate levels of use given that mini football is played on the pitches and therefore use is less wearing on each pitch and for less time per match.
It is worth highlighting those pitches which have a significant amount of overplay (those with a weekly overplay of 1.5 matches or more) as quality will be adversely affected at these pitches.
68
Figure 17: Grass pitch sites considered to be significantly overplayed (weekly overplay of 1.5+ matches)
Site name Weekly overplay of matches
Bournemouth
LeAF Academy 1 5
LeAF Academy 2 3.5
Harewood College 2 (Junior) 2
Poole
Haymoor School2 (Junior) 2
Haymoor School 3 (Junior) 1.5
Learoyd Playing Fields 2 (Junior) 2.5
Plainfields Farm Recreation Ground 4 3 (Junior)
In summary, the supply – demand balance in pitches in Bournemouth and Poole is as follows:
- 69 -
Figure 17a: Pitch supply – demand balance in Bournemouth and Poole
Matches Equivalent in ‘standard’ Pitch type Capacity Pitch Use Balance pitches
Senior 61 49.5 +12.5 +6.25
Youth 4 3 +1 +0.5 Bournemouth Junior 6 7 -1 -0.5
Mini 37 47 -10 -5
Senior 85 49.5 +35.5 +17.25
Youth 0 0 0 0 Poole Junior 18 20 -2 -1
Mini 48 9.5 +38.5 +16.25
Notes: * where a standard pitch can accommodate 2 matches per week
70
Using Surplus and Deficit Figures
The pitch surplus and deficit figures generated by the Assessment should not be used in isolation. The figures alone need to be treated with caution for a number of reasons:
They cannot represent local qualitative or ‘on the ground’ issues, and should therefore be read in conjunction with other information gathered; They could mask issues generated by peak time demand; Identifying figures for additional pitches does not necessarily mean that new pitches need to be provided. Alternative existing sites with pitches not currently in community use could be brought into use or under-used pitches better utilised to absorb demand; and, While clubs which are identified as having capacity issues may need the use of an additional pitch, they may not have the ambition to increase the size of the club in this way, i.e. they may be content with the status quo.
71
Unmet demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘unmet demand’ as follows:
“Current unmet demand could be in the form of a team that has currently got access to a pitch for its matches but nowhere to train or vice versa. It could also be from an educational establishment that is currently using an indoor facility because of the lack of access to outdoor pitch provision. Along with a lack of pitches of a particular type being available to the community unmet demand may be due to the poor quality and therefore limited capacity of pitches in the area and/or a lack of provision and ancillary facilities which meet a certain standard of play/league requirement. League secretaries may be aware of some unmet demand as they may have refused applications from teams wishing to enter their competitions due to a lack of pitch provision which in turn is hindering the growth of the league. As it is known to exists any unmet demand recorded should be easily quantifiable e.g. a training session for one team on a weekday evening.” (Paragraph B36, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Most identified unmet demand for football in Bournemouth and Poole seems mainly to relate to demand for the use of AGPs for training (see the assessment on AGPs later in this report for estimated levels of unmet demand). However, some clubs have suggested that the quantity of facilities (which could mean pitches or ancillary facilities or both) limits their capacity to grow, although this probably relates to capacity of their home ground to accommodate this unmet demand and so capacity may be available within the existing supply of grass pitches in Bournemouth and Poole. The clubs which identified that the quantity of facilities limits their capacity were Trinity FC (which play at Pelhams Park) and Dexter YFC (which play at Learoyd Road Playing Fields).
Displaced demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘displaced demand’ as follows:
- 72 -
“Displaced demand generally relates to play by teams or other users of playing pitches from within the study area (i.e. from residents of the study area) which takes place outside the area. It is important to know whether this displaced demand is due to issues with the provision of pitches and ancillary facilities in the study area, just reflective of how the sports are played (e.g. at a central venue for the wider area) or due to the most convenient site for the respective users just falling outside of the LA/study area. It is therefore important to establish: • What displaced demand exists and why including the amount and type of demand (e.g. a senior match on a natural grass pitch, a junior training session on an AGP); • Whether those generating the displaced demand would prefer to play within the study area and where.” (Paragraph B34, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
We have been made aware of some displaced demand in Bournemouth. The Bournemouth Youth League has a cap on the number of teams which can play in its league. This is understood to be partially about lack of access to the required number of pitches but also due to a lack of volunteer capacity to manage additional teams in the league. As a result, the FA has set up a New Forest Youth League to absorb some of the demand placed upon the Bournemouth Youth League so that Bournemouth teams can have the opportunity to play in and around Bournemouth. However, pitch ratings identified above and overall carrying capacity set against games played would suggest that there is capacity at existing grounds to accommodate additional youth matches.
While a number of teams which play in Bournemouth and Poole leagues have ‘home’ grounds outside of the Boroughs, we have heard no evidence which suggests that these teams would rather play inside the Boroughs. A number of teams which play in the leagues are based outside of the Boroughs and formed from players living outside of the Borough and so a number of the teams which play outside of the Borough boundaries do so because of where the majority of their players live. No teams who responded to the survey expressed concerns about having to travel outside of the Boroughs to games, either home or away. If there is any displaced demand not identified by this assessment but which exists, the quality rating, carrying capacity and umber
- 73 -
of matches played at grounds suggests that there is capacity to accommodate teams within exiting pitch supply if quality is enhanced where necessary ad maintained at least to ‘standard’ levels across both Boroughs.
Latent Demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘latent demand’ as follows:
“Whereas unmet demand is known to exist latent demand is demand that evidence suggests may be generated from the current population should they have access to more or better provision. This could include feedback from a sports club who may feel that they could set up and run an additional team if they had access to better provision. Details of the potential amount and type of any latent demand in the study area should be sought.” (Paragraph B37, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Market segmentation data, used above to identify overall participation in football also provides an estimate of latent demand – i.e. those people who would like to play the sport who do not do so at the moment. The data does not set out reasons why these people are not accessing the sport but reasons can vary and can include (amongst others) lack of transport to get to a venue, cost of playing, or availability of pitch time or personal time to play.
It suggests that 1,952 people in Bournemouth would like to play football but cannot currently do so, while the figure in Poole is 1,336. The figures are for those in the 16+ age group only and therefore do not estimate latent demand from younger age groups. Figure 18 shows the types of people who would like to play and the proportion of the total that they represent.
- 74 -
Figure 18: Segments of population which would like to play football (number and % above 6% of resident population)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, Jamie 629 32.2 pints and pool
Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent Ben 382 19.6 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, Tim 292 15 buying a house and settling down with partner
Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, Philip sporty males with older children and more time for 176 9 themselves
Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy pub Kev 137 7 league games and watching live sport
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent Ben 344 25.7 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, Tim 263 19.7 buying a house and settling down with partner
Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, Jamie 195 14.6 pints and pool
Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, Philip sporty males with older children and more time for 186 13.9 themselves
Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy pub Kev 90 6.7 league games and watching live sport Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 75 -
Using FA figures for the number of players which typically make up an 11-a- side squad (18 players) the latent demand identified in Bournemouth equates to an estimated 108 teams and in Poole, to an estimated 74 teams. However, this assumes that all latent demand can be satisfied, which is unlikely, given the varying factors at play which will result in someone wanting to play rather than being able to play.
Comparatively, figures obtained from the FA suggest that there is latent demand or ‘growth potential’ in Poole from the existing population for 27 male adult 11-a-side teams, 80 male and 9 female youth teams playing 9v9 and 47 mixed mini soccer teams. In Bournemouth, the figures are for 9 male adult and 6 female adult 11-a-side teams, 59 male youth and 4 female youth teams and 33 mini soccer teams.
Both of these sets of figures seem a little unrealistic in places in terms of delivery on the ground of additional teams. Both sets of figures admit to being ‘global’ and showing potential levels of latent demand. For the purposes of the strategy and planning for pitch provision, it is more appropriate to use figures based on the increased participation target adopted by the FA and this is factored in to future provision needs for pitches later in this assessment. However, the figures for latent demand and growth potential suggested by the market segmentation data and the FA respectively should be noted and used as a range to inform potential need in the future. In light of the FA’s 1% participation increase target for 2013-17, identified above, which would equate to an additional 5.4 adult teams in Bournemouth and 3.7 teams in Poole, a more appropriate proportion of teams which could realistically be generated might perhaps be 20%. Applying this to the above figures, the following estimations of pitch requirements are identified. From the figures, it seems sensible to take the mid-point between the high and low figures for pitch requirements, which equates to around 10 pitches in Bournemouth and 10 in Poole. These would only be required if the growth potential / latent demand was to be realised. Additional pitches may not be needed if demand can be absorbed by existing supply, which is explored later in the assessment.
- 76 -
Figure 19: Potential range of additional teams and pitches from latent demand / growth potential
Market FA growth potential
segmentation Female Female Male adult Male youth Mini (16+) adult youth
Estimated number of teams 108 9 6 59 4 33
20% ‘reality check’ applied 21.6 1.8 1.2 11.8 0.8 6.6 Bournemouth Equivalent number of full 0.9 0.6 5.8 0.4 1.7 size pitches 10.9 FA growth potential total = 9.4
Estimated number of teams 74 27 0 80 9 47
20% ‘reality check’ applied 14.8 5.4 0 16 1.8 9.4 Poole Equivalent number of full 2.7 0 8 0.9 2.4 size pitches* 7.4 FA growth potential total = 14.0
Notes: Numbers are rounded to the nearest full pitch. Youth and mini pitches are additional, if the full size adult pitches are to be kept in ‘standard’ condition. * based on each team requiring a home pitch match to play a home game every other week, therefore the pitch equivalent is for 0.5 pitch per team. This also equates to maintaining a pitch at an adequate or ‘standard’ level. Maintaining a pitch at a ‘good’ level is likely to mean that a pitch can accommodate 3 matches per week, therefore resulting in a lower pitch requirement overall. Mini soccer team which play on full size pitches use half of the pitch and so their full size equivalent requirements is half as much at 0.25.
77
Club aspirations to increase membership
Of the 24 clubs which responded to the survey, 11 said that they plan to increase adult membership numbers in the next few years with the remainder looking to remain at current levels of membership. 9 clubs want to extend the number of juniors although 2 of these clubs said they have a waiting list for junior members to join.
Of the teams which responded to the survey, 14 said that the quantity of coaches and / or volunteers to support the club was insufficient to support the growth of the club, limiting the capacity of the club to develop.
Facility and pitch priorities, planned improvements and aspirations
Clubs, teams and leagues
Of the clubs which responded to the survey, only Bournemouth Electric identified plans to improve their facility (the changing rooms). This is largely because many clubs which responded do not own their own ground and so commented on the quality and condition of the pitches and facilities they do use as noted elsewhere in this assessment.
A number of clubs had aspirations to grow the number of teams they have. The issues that limit their opportunity to grow were identified in the survey and have been identified in earlier sections. Most reasons relate to the quality of pitches and facilities, although two teams identified a lack in the number of facilities and / or pitches.
78
Football Association
The following issues and priorities have been highlighted by the Football Association in relation to grass pitches:
The Slades Farm site redevelopment and refurbishment in Bournemouth is a priority both in terms of improvements to the quality of grass pitches and the provision of a new full size AGP; The need to improve the quality of some pitches in Bournemouth; The need to improve quality of pitches (drainage in particular) at Branksome Recreation Ground, Canford Park Sports and Plainfield Farm in Poole; The need to improve facilities and pitch quality at Learoyd Road or relocate the club which uses the ground (Dexters) to another site; The need for changing rooms to be updated and refurbished at some pitches to improve quality; Meeting the challenge of accommodating potential latent demand and demand from an increasing population when there is little land available in Bournemouth and Poole to develop new pitches.
Schools, Colleges and Academies
We understand that Townsend School (now the Jewell Academy) in Bournemouth is reorienting a new pitch following construction work on the site. The pitch will be brought back into use by July 2014, although it is not known whether community use will be available for the pitch. The other grass pitch project of which we have been made aware is the changes programmed to be made to the pitches at Slades Farm / Winton Arts and Media College (improving the quality through improved drainage to the school pitches).
- 79 -
Delivering existing plans and programmes
The Literature and Strategic Review of plans and programmes currently operational in Bournemouth and Poole has identified the following projects which will need to be considered alongside recent evidence gathered on pitch provision to help determine the strategic approach to fill gaps in provision in the period to 2026.
- 80 -
Figure 20: Projects which relate to future strategic provision of football pitches in Bournemouth and Poole
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing
Kings Park East Parks Investment Plan – improve changing facilities, 2009-13 and include cafe/toilets up to Kings Park £400,000 Masterplan
Parks Slades Farm Plan Investment Plan – new changing 2009-13 and facilities/cafe/community Slades Farm Masterplan room/toilets up to £1m 2012-2021
Identified priorities (programmed year of improvement and H/M/L priority) relevant to Sports 250m cycle Slades Farm Strategy: track Masterplan Yes Develop 250m cycle track (2011 - completed 2012-2021 H); repair and improve skate park 2011 (2012-14 - M); improve school pitch drainage (2013 - H); refurbish
- 81 -
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing tennis / netball courts at Glenmoor School (2014 - H); fitness trail in school or park (2014 – M); full size artificial turf pitch for rugby / football (2016 – M); new sports hall (2020 - M); new girls’ changing rooms (2015 - H); outdoor climbing wall (2014 – M); and, 1km cycling / training circuit (2015 - M).
Leisure Services will work closely with schools to identify sites where Bournemouth No significant facilities, management costs and Green Space progress. Currently Yes maintenance can be shared to Strategy 2007- working with maximise the benefit of park and 2011 Winton & Glenmoor school sites.
Any site that is well maintained and, Complete. if appropriate, promoted, but still is Bournemouth Wallisdown underused, should be investigated Green Space leased to for another potential use by the Strategy 2007- University, Council. If no potential Council use 2011 Duck Lane can be identified, the land should be identified for
- 82 -
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing declared surplus to requirements, Housing. with the exception of sites of high Victoria Park nature conservation value. Priority and Fernheath sites for investigation (2006-08) still well used. included: Outdoor Sports & Playing Fields – Duck Lane, Wallisdown Playing Fields, Victoria Park, Fernheath Road.
Poole Improvement to 37 pitches across Infrastructure Borough as lack of space precludes Yes Programme, additional pitches to improve stock. 2011
Poole Deliver improvements to ancillary Infrastructure recreation facilities such as Yes Programme, accessible for all changing rooms. 2011
Football: Adoption of a uniform Bournemouth procedure for fixture cancellation and Poole Poole Bournemouth throughout the area (based on Playing Pitch procedures used in Bournemouth) Strategy and
- 83 -
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing (short term) Action Plan, 2008
Bournemouth and Poole Football: Improve pre-match fixture Playing Pitch Bourne-mouth Poole pitch inspections (short term) Strategy and Action Plan, 2008
Football: Develop a uniform Bournemouth approach to charging for training on and Poole No, Council managed pitches to Playing Pitch unmanageable ameliorate the impact of unofficial Strategy and use. (medium term) Action Plan, 2008
Bournemouth Poole
and Poole Bourne-mouth - Football: Improve community use of Ashdown Depends on Playing Pitch working with school pitches (medium term) (Poole) demand Strategy and Winton & Glenmoor Action Plan, 2008 on plan
Football: Improve provision Bournemouth Turlin Moor (particularly changing and Poole Depends on (Poole) accommodation) for girls and Playing Pitch demand New changing women (long term) Strategy and
- 84 -
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing Action Plan, 2008 facilities at Iford and Leisure Centre at Pelhams (Bournemouth ).
Bournemouth Football: Link pitch hire to and Poole achievement of Charter Standard Playing Pitch Bourne-mouth Poole (long term) Strategy and Action Plan, 2008
- 85 -
Future Demand
Team Generation Rates and number of pitches equivalent
To get an idea about the future number of teams that might be formed from an increasing population during the strategy period to 2026 (and therefore future demand for pitches), population projections can be applied to age groups used for competitive play. Team generation rates are calculated simply by dividing the current population within an age group for a sport by the number of teams in the area within that age group at the current time, with the ratio then applied to projected population for that age group.
The following table sets out the projected number of football teams for Bournemouth and Poole and translates them to the number of pitches that the number of teams may need (which could be provided either from existing stock or from additional pitches if needed). The figures need to be used with some caution. Figures are generated by sub-area and on the basis of where home teams play. In some sub areas there are no registered home pitches and so figures can show that there are no teams generated from these areas. However, at the same time, there may be players who live in a sub-area with no pitches. This will be offset to a degree by sub-areas which have a lot of pitches generating a higher team generation rate than occurs in reality.
Therefore, to put the sub area derived figures in context, figures are presented for Bournemouth and for Poole as a whole to ensure balance and more accurate reflection of the make-up of teams ‘on the ground’. Full Team Generation Rate calculations are appended to this report as a separate file for information, should interrogation of the data be required.
- 86 -
Figure 21: Impact of Population increase in Bournemouth on the numbers of teams
Number of Current Future Potential Current teams in population population in Population Change in Team Age Groups age group in age group age group Change in Team Generation within the within the within the Age Group Numbers in Rate area area area Age Group
Football Adult Men 11v11 (16-45yrs) 72 43,480 38,950 604 -4,530 -7.5
Football Adult Women 11v11 (16- 1 40,580 36,550 40,580 -4,030 -0.1 45yrs)
Football Youth Boys11v11 (12-15yrs) 21 3,530 3,970 168 440 2.6
Football Youth Girls 11v11 (12-15yrs) 5 3,310 4,050 662 740 1.1
Football Youth Boys 9v9 (10-11yrs) 8 1,570 1,910 196 340 1.7
Football Youth Girls 9v9 (10-11yrs) 0 1,480 1,990 0 510 0
Football Mini Soccer Mixed 7v7 (8- 13 3,200 3,780 246 580 2.4 9yrs)
Football Mini Soccer Mixed 5v5 (6- 10 3,370 3,630 337 260 0.8 7yrs)
Bournemouth Totals 130 100,520 94,830 - -5,690 1
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
- 87 -
Figure 22: Impact of Population increase in Poole on the numbers of teams
Current Number of Future Potential population teams in population in Population Change in in age Current Sport and Age Groups age group age group Change in Team group TGR within the within the Age Group Numbers in within the area area Age Group area
Football Adult Men 11v11 (16-45yrs) 58 27,420 24,590 473 -2,830 -6
Football Adult Women 11v11 (16- 6 26,730 24,110 4,455 -2,620 -0.6 45yrs)
Football Youth Boys 11v11 (12-15yrs) 30 3,270 3,730 109 460 4.2
Football Youth Girls 11v11 (12-15yrs) 3 3,250 3,690 1,083 440 0.4
Football Youth Boys 9v9 (10-11yrs) 20 1,520 1,780 76 260 3.4
Football Youth Girls 9v9 (10-11yrs) 0 1,420 1,770 0 350 0
Football Mini Soccer Mixed 7v7 (8- 24 2,990 3,480 125 490 3.9 9yrs)
Football Mini Soccer Mixed 5v5 (6- 13 3,220 3,390 248 170 0.7 7yrs)
Poole Totals 154 69,820 66,540 - -3,280 6
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
- 88 -
Additional (Increase in) Participation
Most National Sports Governing Bodies have targets to increase participation in the period from 2013 to 2017 (their Sport England funding period). These tie investment in facilities and sports development to increases in the number of people playing their sport at least once a month for 30 minutes or more.
For football, there is a target set nationally for around a 1% increase on the base number of people playing between 2013 and 2017. In order to get an appreciation of the potential increase over the strategy period from the existing population, the rate is applied to the number of players currently playing identified in the market segmentation data set out earlier in this section. The figures will be limited to those in the 16+ age group as the data does not count under 16 players. The data includes those who play informally and not just for a team and so presents different figures than if the 1% increase was applied to the existing number of teams identified above in the 16-45 age group.
If the participation increase is applied to teams only, it suggests one additional competitive team could be formed in Bournemouth and one in Poole.
The resulting additional potential players for informal and competitive play arising from a 1% increase in participation are shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Potential additional numbers playing as a result of participation increases
Number of people Additional number of playing (16+) and people playing across all sub-areas in applying 1% increase 2013 in participation
Bournemouth 9,778 98
Poole 6,745 68 Notes: assumes even growth between age groups
89
Applying the FA rates of the number of players in an 11-a-side 16+ squad (18), in Bournemouth, this equates to around an additional 5.4 teams equivalent from participation increases and 3.8 teams in Poole. As the market segmentation data includes informal players as well as formal teams, it could be deduced (if the 1% participation increase is applied to the existing number of competitive teams playing and then subtracted from this total potential number of teams) that informal teams could form 4.4 teams in Bournemouth and 2.8 in Poole. However, informal play is more likely to take place on a 5 or 7-a-side basis than a 11-a-side 18 player squad and so therefore the number of teams generated is likely to be greater (and the pitch needs different). For example, if the 4.4 teams equates to 79 players in Bournemouth and the 2.8 teams equates to 50 in Poole, this could translate to 11 x 7-a-side teams in Bournemouth and 7 x 7-a-side teams in Poole. The needs for this type of play is more likely to be for small AGPs rather than grass pitches, and this is reflected in the analysis for AGPs elsewhere in this report.
If this rationale is applied to under 16 teams currently playing in Bournemouth and Poole, using the figures above (and using the number of players likely to make up a squad in various age groups4), a 1% increase in under 16 participation could equate to one additional team in Bournemouth and one additional team in Poole. Changes in informal play are less easy to forecast for under 16s, although, in any case, any informal play is likely to take place at open MUGAs or in parks areas rather than on grass pitches.
Total range of pitches required by 2026
Translating team numbers to an equivalent number of pitches can be done based on a 11-a-side team requiring 0.5 pitches to play (as two teams play on one pitch at a time) and a grass pitch accommodating 2 games a week if it is maintained in ‘standard’ condition. For under 16 play, a proportion (youth under 13/14 and under 15/16) can also use a full size pitch with temporary
4 10.5 players has been used as an average on the basis of FA squad numbers for the various age group teams. The FA use 18 players for 11-a-side, 10 for mini soccer, 12 for 9v9, 9 for 7v7, 8 for 6v6 & 5v5 and 6 for 4v4. - 90 -
line markings. Youth (under 11/12) and mini soccer can play two games on a full size pitch with temporary markings.
Figure 24 summarises the potential change to the number of teams in Bournemouth and Poole and potential pitch equivalent requirements as a result.
- 91 -
Figure 24: Changes to the number of teams in Bournemouth and Poole and resultant requirement in ‘standard’ quality full size pitch equivalents
Potential range of Equivalent Additional additional teams number of full Team teams from Total from latent demand size pitches numbers participation estimated Age Groups Pitch size / growth potential required in 2026 increase in 2026 (less requirement (maintained (TGRs) (competitive (rounded) from participation in ‘standard’ play) increase) condition)*
Adult (16-45yrs) Full 65.4 1 2 68.4 33 - 34
Youth 11v11 29.7 0.3 12.3 42.3 15 – 21 Bournemouth Under 16 Youth / mini 35.9 0.2 6.4 42.5 9 – 11 5v5, 7v7 & 9v9
Total 57 – 65
Adult (16-45yrs) Full 57.4 1 4.4 61.8 29 - 31
Youth 11v11 37.6 0.3 17.5 55.4 19 – 28 Poole Under 16 Youth / mini 65 0.6 8.8 74.4 16 - 19 5v5, 7v7 & 9v9
Total 64 - 78
Notes: see over…
92
Notes:
* upper range includes latent / growth potential figures, lower does not. Numbers are rounded to the nearest full pitch. Calculations are based upon adult and youth 11v11 teams requiring a home ground and home game every other week, i.e. 0.5 pitches per team. For other, mini and youth 9v9 teams it is assumed that 2 games can be played on one full size adult pitch and therefore teams will require 0.25 pitches per team.,
- 93 -
Future demand – existing supply balance
The following table sets out the figures above to establish the surplus and deficiency of pitches now and in the future.
In Bournemouth, the figures suggest that there could be additional demand by 2026 for between 5.5 and 18.5 full size grass pitch equivalents, if existing pitches which are in a ‘poor’ condition can be improved to a ‘standard’ condition and therefore accommodate 2 rather than 1 match per week. If carrying capacity was to be improved at a greater number of pitches to a ‘good’ standard (thus pitches being able to accommodate 3 matches per week), this would increase carrying capacity further and reduce additional demand overall. However, if additional artificial grass pitches are provided in line with the assessment later in this report (up to 3 AGPs have been identified as the need for Bournemouth to 2026), the need for this many additional grass pitches could be reduced. As already noted, the FA now sanctions competitive play on AGPs, and leagues are content for play to take place on them. A typical AGP can accommodate 6 match equivalents over a weekend and 8 across weekdays (based on a match requiring 2.5 hours and evenings accommodating up to 4 hours training time). Therefore an AGP could accommodate 14 match equivalents per week, equating to 7 ‘standard’ condition pitches. The solution to accommodating additional demand in Bournemouth is therefore likely to be a combination of improving quality of existing pitches in poor condition, rebalancing the number of matches between over and under capacity pitches and provision of AGPs in line with the recommendations in the AGP assessment later in this report.
In Poole, there appears to be little need for additional grass pitches in the period to 2026, with a focus being on maintaining existing levels of condition and enhancing the few where the pitch is of ‘poor’ quality or is overplayed. While the figures for 2026 suggest that there is an oversupply by 2026, if additional demand comes forward as estimated, the existing supply will be required to accommodate that demand. As with Bournemouth, the position with AGPs needs to be taken into account. The AGP assessment has identified 94
a requirement for up to 2 additional AGPs in Poole. If these are delivered, there could be a case for rationalising provision of some pitches, for example, returning poorer quality ones back to recreational use.
It is important to note for both Bournemouth and Poole, that there are individual issues relating to quality of both pitches and ancillary facilities which need to be addressed as identified earlier in this report and highlighted in the conclusions.
- 95 -
Figure 25: Surplus / Deficiency of ‘Standard’ condition pitches in 2026 (community use pitches)
A B C D E F G
Carrying Existing Pitches Total capacity if surplus Future demand equivalent if additional Existing ‘poor’ capacity if maintained at Existing (carrying demand supply standard ‘poor’ pitches ‘standard’ demand capacity, pitches (balance) pitches (carrying improved to condition (pitch use, maintained to (2026) capacity, have ‘standard’ matches ‘standard’ (accommodating matches quality (matches per per week) (B – C) condition) 2 matches per improved week) per week) week) to (matches per (2026) (E – B) (F / 2) ‘standard’ week)
Bournemouth 74 93 (+19) 61.5 -31.5 104 – 130^ 11 – 37 5.5 – 18.5
Poole 153 157 (+4) 83.5 -69.5 128 – 156^ -29 - -1 -14.5 - -0.5
Notes: ^ Figures taken from estimated demand from additional and existing teams in Figure 24 above: 57 – 64 pitches in Bournemouth and 64 – 78 pitches in Poole. Based on pitches maintained to a ‘standard’ condition, equating to a pitch being able to host 2 matches per week. If a pitch can be maintained to a ‘good’ condition, it can host 3 matches per week and the requirement for the number of pitch equivalents would be lower. Figures should not be used in isolation as the ‘global’ picture can mask specific or individual issues at individual sites / pitches.
96
Conclusions
There are currently sufficient grass pitches to meet existing demand in Bournemouth and Poole. However, there are a number of pitches which need improvements to their quality, particularly in Bournemouth, and others which require a rebalance of matches played against their carrying capacity (i.e. how many matches that should be played there in relation to the quality of the surface).
Looking to the future, the projected team generation rates suggest that there will not be a significant increase in adult team numbers by 2026, as a result of most increases in population being within the older and younger age groups. However, with a drive to increase participation and maintain younger people’s interest in the game for longer, the focus of support will need to be largely for younger players playing mini, junior and youth football. As well as the need to ensure quality is maintained and enhanced where possible, support will need to be given to clubs where the number of volunteers, their time and availability of coaches is appearing to limit clubs’ capacity to grow.
There is some additional demand created by potential increases in adult participation and from latent demand (if realised), if quality and opportunities to access pitches (for informal play in particular) can be improved. This is especially the case in Bournemouth, where there is a need for additional pitches from estimated increases in demand to 2026. Poole is less likely to require additional grass pitches in the long-term as long as quality can be maintained.
However, the provision of grass pitches for football cannot be determined in isolation from the provision of artificial grass pitches (AGPs) which can now be used for competitive play (supported by both the FA and local leagues) and can therefore be part of the solution to overcoming supply and quality deficiencies. AGPs can accommodate many more matches and training time and are versatile in being easily used for small sided games or training in addition for 11-a-side matches.
97
Bournemouth and Poole
The key areas of focus in Bournemouth and Poole should be to:
improve quality where pitches and ancillary facilities require it through a number of measures including (but not limited to) direct improvements to the pitch, rebalancing use where appropriate to relieve pressure on some pitches, ensure that pitch inspections give sufficient notice of a need for a change of pitch; increasing overall capacity within supply through provision of AGPs; protect the existing supply (or ensure that supply and quality of supply is not lost if pitches are rationalised or replaced by AGPs); where the loss of a grass pitch is unavoidable, replacement pitch(es) and ancillary facilities to at least meet the use of the pitch should be provided elsewhere within the Borough; support growth of clubs and teams through support in increasing the number of coaches and volunteers; ensure high quality of provision is made for young people; provide for additional demand within the limitations of provision placed upon the towns given their lack of available land to develop new additional pitches; and, monitor the changes to participation to ensure that the strategy being implemented continues to meet any changing needs and demand arising during the strategy period to 2026.
Bournemouth
In Bournemouth, the focus for the strategy should be:
Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘standard’ or ‘good’ quality but have a poor (red) capacity rating with a weekly overplay of more than 1.5 matches: LEAF Academy pitches 1 and 2;
- 98 -
Harewood College Junior pitch; Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘standard’ or ‘good’ quality but have a poor (red) capacity rating with a weekly overplay of up to 1.5 matches: King’s Park pitch 9; Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘poor’ and have a poor (red) capacity rating with a weekly overplay of up to 1.5 matches: Fern Heath Playing Fields pitch 1; and, Harewood College pitch 1. Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘poor’ but where use is appropriate to carrying capacity: Fern Heath Playing Fields pitch 2; Winton Arts and Media College pitches 1 and 2 (junior); Muscliff Park pitches 1 and 2; Bishop of Winchester Academy pitches 1 and 2; and, Littledown Park (junior). Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where the audit and consultation alone have identified concerns about quality: Wallisdown Playing Fields pitches 1 and 2 (in Borough of Poole but leased to Bournemouth Borough Council); King’s Park pitches 5 – 7 inclusive (5 being mini and 6 & 7 being youth pitches). Improve the quality of the ancillary facilities at the following pitches: Pelhams Park pitches; and, King’s Park pitches 4 – 7 inclusive (5 being mini and 6 & 7 being youth pitches).
- 99 -
Monitor use at the following pitches where there have been cancellations to ensure that quality conditions do not worsen: Kinson Manor Playing Fields pitches 1 and 2; Slades Farm pitches 1 – 5 inclusive; Muscliff Park pitch 1; Strouden Playing Fields pitches 1 – 4 inclusive; and, King’s Park pitches 1 – 3 inclusive. Identify locations for up to 3 additional full size AGPs (with peak period community and team access) which can support quality and supply change to respond to demand in club based and informal play in the Borough. A proposed AGP at Slades Farm should be delivered as a priority. Options around provision of an AGP at King’s Park should be explored as a potential way of improving quality at the pitches, accessibility and to add capacity should pitches 1 and 2 be lost to the proposed ice rink which has outline planning permission. Consider further AGPs if necessary to support match equivalent growth in unmet demand by 2026 (11 – 37 matches per week), if that demand is demonstrated ‘on the ground’ by that time. Within the context of the above strategy actions, ensure the delivery of the Slades Farm masterplan, which will help to address some of the above issues around quality and capacity. Explore opportunities with the youth league to increase the number of teams which can be accommodated as participation in youth play grows.
Poole
In Poole, the focus for the strategy should be:
Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘good’ or ‘standard’ but have a poor (red) capacity rating with a weekly overplay of more than 1.5 matches: Junior pitches at Learoyd Road (pitch 2) (particularly drainage), and, Haymoor School (pitch 3) and Plainfield Farm Recreation Ground (pitch 4).
- 100 -
Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘poor’ and have a poor (red) capacity rating with a weekly overplay of up to 1.5 matches: Junior pitch at Learoyd Road (pitch 3) (particularly drainage). Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where they are rated as ‘poor’ but where use is appropriate to carrying capacity: Bearwood Playing Fields. Improve the quality of the following pitches (through a combination of direct improvements to the pitch and /or rebalancing use to pitches which are under used) where the audit and consultation alone have identified concerns about quality: Branksome Recreation Ground pitches 1 – 5 inclusive (particularly drainage); Learoyd Road Playing Fields pitch 1 (particularly drainage); Oakdale Middle School pitch 1 (particularly drainage); Canford Park Sports Arena pitches 1 – 8 (particularly drainage); Plainfield Farm pitches 1 – 3 inclusive (particularly drainage and an uneven playing surface); and, St Edwards School (particularly drainage). Monitor use at the following pitches where there have been cancellations to ensure that quality conditions do not worsen: Branksome Recreation Ground pitches 1 – 3 inclusive; Learoyd Road Playing Fields pitches 1 – 3 (pitches 12 and 3 are junior) inclusive; Identify locations for up to 2 additional full size AGPs (with peak period community and team access) which can support quality and supply change to respond to demand in club based and informal play in the Borough.
- 101 -
Cricket
Introduction
Cricket has traditionally been played on grass pitches with a number of wickets on a single pitch used to preserve the quality of wickets throughout the season. However, there are a number of pitches now which have artificial wickets, being used largely for practice and evening and weekend matches where the main grass wickets require a rest period to maintain quality for first team matches. At present, the main challenges to cricket include: continuing high quality, yet cost-effective, maintenance of grounds where they remain in public ownership and management; and, the impact of the modern-day game, with players hitting the ball further, which poses challenges for urban based grounds constrained by buildings and streets where safety and insurance are a key issue.
Cricket in the Bournemouth and Poole area is not confined to being played at grounds within the Borough boundaries. For example, Bournemouth Cricket Club, understood to be one of the largest cricket clubs in the country, plays at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough. However, while this assessment focuses on those grounds within the two Boroughs, where information is relevant to the grounds in Bournemouth and Poole, it is considered. For example, players and teams interested in indoor practice and winter league play can utilise the Dorset Indoor Cricket Centre at Hurn Bridge in Christchurch and the centre is likely to draw from a wide catchment, including into Poole.
Information compiled in this assessment has been taken from a number of sources including an audit of pitch quality (undertaken by officers from Bournemouth Borough Council, Borough of Poole and Active Dorset), Active Places Power (Sport England) data, consultation with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and club and league surveys (sent out by the ECB). The Dorset Funeral Plan Cricket League replied to the survey while there were 11
- 102 -
responses from 8 clubs which have home grounds for teams in Bournemouth and Poole5.
Definitions
Grass cricket pitches set out for adult / senior and junior play are included in this assessment. Both grass and artificial wickets are included although it is not straightforward to identify exactly how much play takes place on artificial wickets, given that they will tend to be used for certain matches (for example not usually for 1st XI teams) or when wet weather has made a grass wicket unplayable.
For the purposes of this assessment a ‘wicket’ is the strip of ground on which the batting takes place and comprises two sets of stumps and bails (one at each end). A ‘square’ is the area within which one or more wickets are laid and set out. The ‘ground’ comprises the wicket(s), square, ‘infield’ and ‘outfield’ where bowling and fielding takes place and ancillary facilities such as the pavilion 6.
The dimensions of a standard cricket pitch are set out in the ECB document “Recommended Guidelines for the construction, preparation and maintenance of cricket pitches and outfields at all levels of the game”. Figure 26 reproduces pitch (wicket) dimensions. The size of grounds in Bournemouth and Poole will vary due to their historic roots when sizes were not standardised for play, although wickets will tend to comply with requirements (for example, an average 10 wicket square will measure 100 x 75 feet / 30.48 x 22.86 meters and a single wicket 20 metres / 22 yards long). There are no fixed dimensions for the ground as a whole although typically, it diameter will be between 100m to 150m (although ECB guidelines suggest that the boundary should be a minimum of 45.72m from the centre of the wicket in use7).
5 Clubs which responded were Broadstone, Suttoners, Parley, Winton, Hamworthy, Branksome & Parkstone, Old Bournemouthonians and Poole Town cricket clubs. 6 The ECB use the term ‘pitch’ to mean what this assessment refers to as the wicket. 7 Source: p. 36, “Recommended Guidelines for the construction, preparation and maintenance of cricket pitches and outfields at all levels of the game”, ECB, 2011 – see - 103 -
Figure 26: Dimension of cricket pitches
Source: p. 58, “Recommended Guidelines for the construction, preparation and maintenance of cricket pitches and outfields at all levels of the game”, ECB, 2011 – see http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/facilities-funding/facilities-guidance-and-project- development/ts4-cricket-pitches-and-outfields,1572,BP.html
NGB priorities and key issues
The ECB’s priorities and key issues have been highlighted as:
Bournemouth Improvements to quality and changes to the running of Kinson Manor ground;
http://www.ecb.co.uk/development/facilities-funding/facilities-guidance-and-project- development/ts4-cricket-pitches-and-outfields,1572,BP.html - 104 -
Winton Cricket Club have recently moved to King George V ground in Ferndown, East Dorset) from using the grounds at Meyrick Park and Winton Recreation Ground due to quality issues with grounds and the boundary being close to houses at Winton Recreation Ground. We understand that they would like to return to Bournemouth if ground issues could be resolved; Dean Park’s future is in doubt with the owners having put the site on the open market to sell; and, There are opportunities to use Slades Farm as a venue for cricket (and could be considered as part of the programmed plans for the redevelopment of the site as a sports hub).
Poole There are known capacity issues at Broadstone Cricket Club’s The Delph ground as it is used every day; Pricing structures at commercially run Canford Arena have meant that a 3rd team has moved to Whitecliff Recreation Ground to play. There are concerns about the future for cricket at Canford Arena with changes to use of the ground subject of commercial decisions (although it is understood that an agreement of use is in place); and, Wallisdown playing fields are in need of investment to make necessary improvements for cricket.
Local authority key issues
Bournemouth Borough Council and Borough of Poole have identified the following issues to key for cricket in the Boroughs:
Bournemouth There are continuing issues with insurance at grounds which are tightly constrained with houses nearby, with batsman being able to hit balls further than when the grounds were put in place. New grounds are required to accommodate interest from schools. Kinson Manor is the best suited ground for cricket in the town but there are limitations to how far the site can be enhanced for cricket including the
- 105 -
tightness of the boundary and proximity to houses. There may therefore be a need to consider other options / sites for evolving a ‘hub’ for cricket in the town in the future. Options could include Pelhams Park or Strouden Park. Meyrick Park has pressure on its use from events, which is not compatible with retaining a good quality cricket ground. Cricket continues to be subsidised by the Council at levels significantly above other sports pitches and facilities. Winton Recreation Ground is a good site for cricket but there are questions around its viability for adult cricket as there are no showers.
Poole Cricket grounds in the Borough of Poole tend to have fewer boundary issues than those in Bournemouth, being less constrained by development close to the edge. There are challenges at the Branksome Recreation Ground including poor drainage and vandalism.
Current Supply
There are 14 grounds with community access with a total of 104 wickets between them in Bournemouth and 12 grounds with a total of 89 wickets in Poole. Of these wickets, 98 are grass and 6 are artificial in Bournemouth and 79 are grass and 10 are artificial in Poole.
- 106 -
Figure 27: Cricket grounds in Bournemouth and Poole (community access)
No. of Grounds Site name Grass wickets Artificial wickets
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Dean Park 20 0
Meyrick Park 8 0
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 1 8 1
LeAF Academy 6 0
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Slades Farm Playing Fields 12 0
Winton Arts and Media College 1 0 1
Winton Arts and Media College 2 6 0
Winton Recreation Ground 8 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Muscliff Park 0 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College 0 1
Kings Park 1 8 0
Kings Park 2 8 0
- 107 -
No. of Grounds Site name Grass wickets Artificial wickets
Kings Park 3 8 0
Littledown Park 6 1
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community School 1 1
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Poole Park 1 1
Whitecliff Recreation Ground 8 0
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Ground 5 1
Wallisdown Playing Fields ** 8 1
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Poole Grammar School 12 2
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
The Delph 8 1
Charborough Road 10 0
Canford Park Sports Ltd 10 1
Corfe Hills School 0 1
Parkstone Grammar School 6* 0
The Hamworthy Club 10 1
- 108 -
Notes: * estimated as none marked out or clear when audited. ** while Wallisdown Playing Fields are in the Borough of Poole, they are managed by Bournemouth Borough Council
Bournemouth and Poole: All areas summary
No. of Community Access Grounds Borough Grounds Grass wickets Artificial wickets
Bournemouth 15 92 6
Poole 12 79 10
Notes: Wallisdown Playing Fields included in Bournemouth figures as they are managed by Bournemouth Borough Council and not Borough of Poole.
In addition to those pitches with community use, there are a number which currently have no community access. These are listed below.
Figure 28: Sites with no community use, no team allocated to use the pitch(es) or ‘use unknown’
No. of Grounds Site name Grass wickets Artificial wickets
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Bournemouth Boys Grammar School 6 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
St Peters Catholic School (Lower 0 1 School)
St Peters Catholic School (Upper 0 1 School)
Sub-total 0 2
- 109 -
No. of Grounds Site name Grass wickets Artificial wickets
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Poole High School 0 1
Sub-total 0 1
The location of these grounds, both with and without community access, is shown in Figure 29 below.
- 110 -
Figure 29: Location of Grounds
Source: Borough of Poole
111
N.B. Map and key courtesy of Borough of Poole
112
Ownership and management type
It is important to understand the picture of ownership and management of cricket grounds. In Bournemouth the local authority owns and manages the majority of grounds. In Poole, the situation is different with a more varied mix of ownership and management with more grounds owned and managed by commercial and education sector. While commercial and education sector grounds can often be maintained to a high standard, local authority grounds can have the advantage of being retained purely for community use.
Figure 30: Ownership and Management of Grounds (community and non-community use pitches)
Ground Ownership Management
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
School/College/University Dean Park Other (in house)
Local Authority (in Meyrick Park Local Authority house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Kinson Manor Playing Local Authority (in Local Authority Fields house)
Oakmead College of School/College/University Academies Technology (in house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Slades Farm Playing Local Authority (in Local Authority Fields house)
Winton Arts and Media Local Authority Local Authority (in
- 113 -
Ground Ownership Management College house)
Winton Recreation Local Authority (in Local Authority Ground house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Muscliff Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
School/College/University Harewood College Academies (in house)
Local Authority (in Kings Park Local Authority house)
Local Authority (in Kings Park Local Authority house)
Local Authority (in Kings Park Local Authority house)
Local Authority (in Littledown Park Local Authority house)
St Peters Catholic School/College/University Voluntary Aided School School (Lower School) (in house)
St Peters Catholic School/College/University Voluntary Aided School School (Upper School) (in house)
Ground Ownership Management
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community Local Authority School/College/University
- 114 -
Ground Ownership Management School (in house)
School/College/University Poole High School Foundation School (in house)
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Local Authority (in Poole Town Cricket Club Local Authority house)
Whitecliff Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Local Authority Other Ground Wallisdown Playing School/College/University Local Authority * Fields (in house)
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
School/College/University Poole Grammar School Academies (in house)
School/College/University Poole Grammar School Academies (in house)
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Broadstone Cricket Club Local Authority Sports Club (The Delph)
Charborough Road Local Authority Other
Canford Park Sports Ltd Commercial Commercial Management
Corfe Hills School Academies School/College/University
- 115 -
Ground Ownership Management (in house)
Parkstone Grammar School/College/University Foundation School School (in house)
The Hamworthy Club Commercial Commercial Management
Notes:
‘Other’ = schools, trusts, etc.
* Wallisdown grounds are leased to Bournemouth Borough Council by Borough of Poole.
- 116 -
Quality and Accessibility
The audit of grounds, which has been verified by the national sports governing bodies, identifies the following quality and accessibility ratings for the grounds in Bournemouth and Poole. Grounds with issues that require attention, in terms of quality and / or access are highlighted. Grounds have been given a rating of ‘good’, ‘standard’ or ‘poor’.
The rating has been based on the quality and accessibility assessed on-site through the audits and have also then been adjusted if necessary and verified by the sport governing body. Unless otherwise stated, the rating applies to all wickets at the site.
Figure 31: Audit scores for community access pitches
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any)
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Dean Park Good None.
The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the quality of the pitch.
We understand from comments received from the ECB that Winton Cricket Club has moved from Meyrick Park to using a Meyrick Park Poor pitch at Ferndown outside of the Borough due to quality issues and because facilities did not meet their needs.
There are known quality and maintenance issues as the outfield is comprised of rugby pitches.
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
- 117 -
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any)
The audit has highlighted that the boundary is fairly tightly bound to the pitch, meaning that there are insurance issues with balls going into properties. The audit also highlights that the quality of the ancillary facilities is such that they require attention. Kinson Manor Poor Suttoners Cricket Club commented on a need to prevent Playing Fields 1 dogs being walked on the cricket pitches, a need to re-open the second pitch (one has been removed by the Council due to insurance issues and balls going into gardens) and increase the height of the fences.
LeAF Academy Standard None.
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the
Slades Farm quality of the pitch. Standard Playing Fields Officers at the Council have suggested that the pavilion needs some improvement.
The audit has identified that the outfield is uneven in places. Winton Arts The practice nets require some attention as the audit has and Media Standard indicated that the surface is uneven and that there are trip College points present.
The audit has highlighted that the outfield is very small in places.
The lack of showers restricts its use to adults only, according
Winton to officers at the Council.
Recreation Standard Officers from the Council have suggested that the changing Ground rooms and pavilion need some improvement. There is a relatively tight boundary making the pitch more suitable for youth and evening cricket.
Winton Cricket Club had indicated that there is no clubhouse
- 118 -
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any) facility, they are unable to store the site screens and unable to store their kit at the ground. The club suggests that it would be able to attract more members if there were floodlights at the ground. They have rated the quality of the outfield as ‘poor’. The club has also stated that their facility “only has two showers and the entrance is around side of building, so it is difficult to provide safe environment for youth”. However, since returning the survey it is understood that the club has stopped using the ground.
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
The audit has identified that there was some damage to the outfield surface (although this may have been repaired before the season started). The audit also identified that Muscliff Park Poor the wicket and surrounds of the artificial wicket are not properly married in and that there may be trip points as a result. The wicket was recorded as being uneven.
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
The audit identified that the wicket and surrounds of the Harewood artificial wicket are not properly married in and that there Poor College may be trip points as a result. The wicket was recorded as being uneven.
Kings Park 1 Poor The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the quality of the pitch. Kings Park 2 Poor Only one match can be played at a time as the outfields of Kings Park 3 Poor the pitches overlap.
Access to changing rooms has been identified by officers at Littledown Park Standard the Council as an issue.
- 119 -
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any)
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community Standard None. School
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
The audit has highlighted that the ground has poor drainage and an uneven artificial wicket.
The club has indicated that the outfield drainage has Poole Town recently deteriorated and that the quality of the wicket Cricket Club Standard would improve if they had covers (a storage solution is (Poole Park) needed to make that change).
The club has indicated that parking is poor (there are parking restrictions in the Park which poses particular problems for away teams).
The audit has identified that the outfield is uneven and that Whitecliff there is evidence of damage to the surface. Recreation Standard The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the Ground quality of the pitch.
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Officers at the Council have suggested that there are challenges at the Branksome Recreation Ground pitch Bransksome including poor drainage and vandalism. Recreation Standard The audit identified that the artificial wicket is uneven and Ground that there are issues with the surface such as rips and moss. The surface of the practice nets area also requires attention.
Wallisdown Branksome and Parkstone Cricket Club has indicated that a Standard Playing clubhouse rather than simply a changing room would
- 120 -
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any) Fields** improve the quality of the ground. The quality of the ground is also inconsistent. Floodlighting would increase membership as the club could attract more players to play in the nets in evenings. The quality of the outfield has been rated by the club as ‘poor’.
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Poole Grammar The ground is used by Poole Town Cricket Club for training. Standard School 1 * It has indicated that an additional artificial wicket would be helpful, allowing more practice. A small pavilion would be Poole Grammar Standard useful at the site. School 2 *
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
The ground is at full capacity according to the ECB.
Broadstone Cricket Club has suggested that allowing dogs on the pitch causes problems, there is a need for better Broadstone security and a need for a bigger car park. The club has also Cricket Club Good suggested that the cost of pitches is too high. (The Delph)
The audit has highlighted that the ancillary facilities require attention but that the building is Listed, making refurbishing them a more challenging (and possibly more costly) process.
The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the quality of the pitch. Charborough Standard Road Broadstone Cricket Club stated that there is a need for better changing rooms, a need to provide toilets and to improve the poor quality of the pitch. The club rated the outfield as ‘poor’, the quality of the square as ‘poor’ and overall condition as ‘very poor’. The club stated that “Charborough road is a 1930s pavilion and cricket ground
- 121 -
Overall Key issues requiring attention Ground rating (if any) not really fit for purpose for modern sport and needs to receive investment. It is the only option for the Club in order to expand its membership”.
The ECB has indicated that although there is some spare capacity at the ground, the toilets and changing rooms there are too poor to ask junior and girls’ teams to play at the ground.
Canford Park The Dorset league has stated that there is an issue with the Sports Ltd. Standard quality of the pitch. (Arena)
Corfe Hills Standard None. School
Parkstone Grammar Good None. School
The Hamworthy Club (which has its own facility) has The suggested that the outfield drainage is in need of Hamworthy Standard improvement and there is a need for better practice facilities Club and a score hut.
Notes: * unsecured community use ** Wallisdown Playing Fields are leased to Bournemouth Borough Council by Borough of Poole.
Other key quality and accessibility issues identified by clubs, leagues, local authorities and NGBs are identified below:
Dean Park is at risk of being sold (and potentially lost to cricket). It is considered by clubs and the ECB as a high quality ground, although it is likely that the owners wish to sell the ground with it being advertised on the open market for sale. At the time of writing this assessment, its future is unclear.
- 122 -
The Dorset league has suggested in its survey return that it would consider playing matches on an artificial surface. Poole Town Cricket Club which plays at Poole Park has identified a need for a practice facility. Poole Town Cricket Club has moved its matches away from Canford Park Arena to Whitecliff due to high charges and the approach taken to cricket at the arena. It is understood, from the ECB, that the Arena pitch is under threat from being lost as a cricket pitch and used solely for football. Winton Cricket Club suggested that the nets at the Winton Arts and Media College ground (where they train) should be re-sited as bowlers look into the sun. Branksome and Parkstone Cricket Club has suggested that one of the things it would change about the use of Branksome Recreation Ground pitch is that it would be club and not local authority run. Suttoners Cricket Club commented that one of the things they would change about Kinson Manor Playing Fields ground is that they would buy it if they could. The Council has stated that the ground at Kinson Manor is good quality but is relatively expensive to maintain due to the need for ball stop boundary fences around the perimeter. There are also planning restrictions meaning that the existing height of fences cannot be increased. The Broadstone Cricket Club has indicated that while they have a 25 year lease for The Delph ground there is a very complicated financial arrangement with the local authority which needs to be simplified in order to help the club plan for the long term. Parkstone Grammar School is understood to act as a hub for girls’ cricket. Bournemouth Borough Council has suggested that there are pressures on Meyrick Park including pressures to hold events there, which makes the maintenance of the cricket pitch there difficult.
- 123 -
Current Demand and Capacity
Participation Rates
Participation rates are a good indicator of demand. The Sport England Market Segmentation Tool can be used to identify the number of people currently playing cricket, as well as providing a picture of the number of people who do not currently play but would like to. Figures 32 and 33 show that, spatially, participation rates are fairly consistent across both Bournemouth and Poole with participation rates of up to 2%. Numbers suggest that 1,296 residents in Bournemouth play cricket and 974 residents of Poole play.
Figure 32: Market Segmentation: People taking part in cricket in Bournemouth
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation tool, 2013
- 124 -
Figure 33: Market Segmentation: People taking part in cricket in Poole
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation tool, 2013
The segments of population types which play cricket the most are shown in Figure 34.
- 125 -
Figure 34: Segments of population which play the most cricket (number and % of resident cricket players playing the sport)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, 321 24.8 pints and pool
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 268 20.7 buying a house and settling down with partner
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 241 18.6 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 173 13.3 themselves
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 242 24.8 buying a house and settling down with partner
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 217 22.3 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 184 18.9 themselves
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, 100 10.3 pints and pool Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 126 -
Number of clubs and teams and where they play
The number of teams competing in leagues and how this has changed is a good indicator of demand. The Dorset cricket league has suggested that the number of teams across Dorset has decreased in the last two years (to 108) and that there is capacity within the league to accommodate more teams. There has been interest from new teams in joining the league during the same period.
In terms of membership levels, of the clubs with a home ground in Bournemouth and Poole and which replied to the survey, 2 said that their junior membership has decreased in the last 2 years, 6 said numbers have increased and 1 that levels had stayed the same. For senior / adult members, 5 clubs said that numbers had decreased, 4 that it had increased and 2 that levels have stayed the same. This suggests some growth in junior participation and reasonable consistency with adult teams in Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 35 lists the cricket clubs, number of teams and where their ‘home’ matches are played in Bournemouth and Poole.
- 127 -
Figure 35: Cricket clubs, teams and ‘home’ grounds
Club Teams Ground
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Parley 1 adult Dean Park *
Suttoners 1st Team Dean Park *
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
2nd Team Suttoners Kinson Manor 2 junior
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Winton 3 junior Winton Recreation Ground
Old Bournemouthonians 1 adult Winton Recreation Ground
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
2 adult
Parley (4th XI & 5th Littledown XI)
1 Sunday, 1 Pokesdown Willows Kings Park Midweek
Wimborne Evening League Boscombe Kings Park (pitch 3) Hampshire Cricket League Division 3
- 128 -
Club Teams Ground
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
1st and 2nd
Wimborne Evening League
Poole Town U9, U10, Poole Park U11,U12,U13, U14,U15 A.U15B (artificial wicket only)
Poole Town 3rd and 4th White Cliff Rec Ground
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
1 Sat 1st Branksome & Parkstone Team, Wallisdown Rec Friendly
Sat 2nd, T20 Branksome & Parkstone Sun, Sun, Branksome Rec Eve, Friendly
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Broadstone 1st and 2nd The Delph
3rd and 4th, Women’s, Broadstone U9,U10,U11,U Charborough Road 12,U13,U14,U 15 girls
1st,2nd, Hamworthy Canford Midweek,
- 129 -
Club Teams Ground Friendly, U15, U14,U13,U12, U11,U10,U9,U 8
Notes: Teams such as Old Bournemouthonians and Bournemouth Cricket Club play at Chapel Gate which is in Christchurch Borough and outside the scope of this assessment. Notes: * While Dean Park only hosts two clubs’ first teams, due to the very good quality of the ground, Dean Park is used for many ‘finals’ matches for league and cup competitions, increasing its use significantly during the season.
Some teams train on other grounds or facilities. We have listed these below where known.
Poole Town Cricket Club train at Poole Grammar School cricket groundand also use St Edward’s School hall for indoor training. Winton Cricket Club use Winton Arts and Media College ground to train as well as The Bourne Academy (hallspace indoors). Branksome and Parkstone Cricket Club use Branksome Recreation Ground to train as it is free to access and the 2nd XI use it.
Nomadic Teams
Some ‘nomadic’ teams, mainly junior teams, play on a number of grounds throughout the season, according to availability. These may or may not be within the boundary of the Borough Councils (for example some will play at King George V Playing Fields in Ferndown). For example, Parley’s junior team play some of their matches at King’s Park, amounting to 3 matches last season.
The clubs which have nomadic teams playing matches at grounds in Bournemouth (we understand that it is not an issue in Poole) and the capacity of grounds they take up over a year (i.e. how many matches per season are
- 130 -
played there) are factored in to carrying capacity and ground use later in this assessment.
Role of shared use sites
The main role of cricket grounds on school sites seems to be for the schools themselves or for training for club sides. Matches tend to be played on club owned or leased, commercial or public grounds. Public grounds are often located in parks, which in itself poses challenges in maintenance and use, particularly around the quality of the ground (for example dog fouling and vandalism have been mentioned several times in the audit and club survey responses as key issues. While shared use sites such as those grounds in public parks provide a more freely accessible provision, the costs of subsidising these grounds, particularly in Bournemouth where per capita subsidy is higher than for any other sport, remains a challenge.
Temporal demand
Temporal demand for games indicates when the majority of matches are played. For cricket, most matches are played over the weekend with one match taking up to 6 hours. Some limited overs and T20 matches take place on Wednesday evenings and junior and ladies’ matches take place on weekday evenings.
Carrying capacity and balance of provision
The carrying capacity of a ground is the amount of games that the wickets can accommodate and how many it should accommodate in relation to quality. This can be estimated using the data gathered on the number of teams which play on a ground as their ‘home’ ground. Calculations can estimate for each ground whether it is operating at over, under or at the appropriate level for the number of games played. Figure 36, taken from the new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, sets out how the carrying capacity is established. Figure 38 then sets out the carrying capacity for each ground in Bournemouth and Poole.
- 131 -
Figure 36: Method for calculating carrying capacity of pitches
How much play can a site accommodate?
Natural Grass Pitches Artificial Grass Pitches (Pitch quality rating x (Hours available in the peak NGB capacity guidance) period & surface type)
If appropriate adjust to reflect: 1. Educational use 2. Other local information and views
The amount of play a site can accommodate (its carrying capacity for community use)
Source: Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, Sport England, 2013
Applying the approach identified above, the ground rating identifies whether it is operating at below, level with or exceeding its carrying capacity. This is identified by a green, amber or red colour in the table below.
The figures for grounds with artificial wickets have two scores, one for the grass wickets and one for the artificial wicket. The majority of artificial wickets will be used by teams for training / practice, junior matches and non- 1st and 2nd XI matches. They tend to be used as a useful supplement to grass wickets and not necessarily used on the basis of any pattern or fixed amount of play per season. Equally, their capacity to accommodate play is not adversely affected by the normal parameters by which a grass wicket is and so their capacity is significantly greater than that of their grass counterparts. Scores do not include wickets used for training. This is because most clubs will use cricket nets for training with the default position for clubs to protect the match wicket from unnecessary play to preserve it for matches, - 132 -
particularly those played by a first team. Juniors will tend to use outfield of a ground for training, again, therefore protecting the quality of the main wickets.
For grass wicketss, the following graph shows the carrying capacity of different quality wickets. A good quality wicket can accommodate 5 matches per season, a standard quality wicket can accommodate 4 matches per season and a poor wicket 3 matches per season. The graph shows the greater carrying capacity of wickets kept in better condition than those in worse condition.
Figure 37: Carrying capacity of different quality grounds with varying numbers of wickets
90
80
70
60 No. of matches per season: Good 50 wicket 40 No. of matches per season: 30 Standard wicket
20
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Number of wickets on a pitch
- 133 -
Figure 38: Number of Matches Played, Capacity and Rating
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff
Dean Park * Adult Good 100 119
Meyrick Park Adult Poor 24 0
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 32 18 (grass wicket)
Kinson Manor Playing Fields 1 Adult Standard 50 8 (artificial wicket)
LeAF Academy Adult Standard 24 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Slades Farm Playing Fields Adult Standard 48 17
134
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Winton Arts and Media College 1 Adult Standard 50 1 (artificial)
Winton Arts and Media College 2 Adult Poor 18 1
Winton Recreation Ground Adult Standard 32 50
Winton Recreation Ground Adult Standard 50 36 (artificial)
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Muscliff Park (artificial) Adult Poor 40 0
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College (artificial) Adult Poor 40 0
Kings Park 1 Adult Poor 24 33
Kings Park 2 Adult Poor 24 23
Kings Park 3 Adult Poor 24 38
- 135 -
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Littledown Park 1 (grass wicket) Adult Standard 24 33
Littledown Park 2 (artificial Adult Standard 50 0 wicket)
Notes: * While Dean Park only hosts two clubs’ first teams, due to the very good quality of the pitch and surroundings, Dean Park is used for many ‘finals’ matches for league and cup competitions, increasing its use significantly during the season.
- 136 -
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community School Adult Standard 4 1 (grass)
Carter Community School Adult Standard 50 1 (artificial)
Poole: sub-area 2
(Parkstone, Penn Hill, Newtown)
Poole Park (grass) Adult Good 5 25
Poole Park (artificial) Adult Good 60 64
Whitecliff Recreation Ground Adult Standard 4 17
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Branksome Recreation Ground Adult Standard 12 16 (grass)
- 137 -
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Branksome Recreation Ground Adult Standard 50 0 (artificial)
Wallisdown Playing Fields (grass) Adult Standard 32 9 *
Wallisdown Playing Fields Adult Standard 50 0 (artificial) *
Totals
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
The Delph (grass) Adult Good 40 44
The Delph (artificial) Adult Good 60 32
Charborough Road Adult Standard 40 37
Canford Park Sports Ltd (grass) Adult Standard 40 36
Canford Park Sports Ltd Adult Standard 50 8 (artificial)
- 138 -
Matches per season Ground Size Quality capacity use rating
Corfe Hills School (artificial) Adult Standard 50 1
Parkstone Grammar School Adult Good 30 1
The Hamworthy Club (grass) Adult Standard 40 0
The Hamworthy Club (artificial) Adult Standard 50 0
Notes: * Wallisdown is leased to Bournemouth Borough Council by Borough of Poole
- 139 -
Those grounds which are considered to be played over their carrying capacity and by how many matches per season are summarised below.
Figure 39: Grounds considered to be over used
Ground Season overplay of matches
Bournemouth
Dean Park 19
Winton Recreation Ground (grass) 18
King’s Park 1 9
King’s Park 3 14
Poole
Branksome Recreation Ground (grass)* 4
Poole Park (grass)* 20
Poole Park (artificial) 4
Whitecliff Recreation Ground* 13
The Delph (grass) 4
Notes: * while the audit records an overplay, it is understood that Continental Landscapes who maintain grounds through contract from the Borough of Poole, set out additional wickets if needed during the season and rotate to maintain quality.
In summary, the demand – supply balance of grounds is shown in the following table. The figures suggest a current supply – demand balance in Bournemouth and surplus of just under one 8 wicket standard condition pitch in Poole.
140
Figure 39a: Summary of supply – demand balance in Bournemouth and Poole for adult grass cricket pitches
Matches per season Equivalent
Capacity Use Balance in grounds*
Bournemouth 332 331 +1 0
Poole 213 184 +29 1
Notes: * based upon an average pitch having a standard condition 8 wicket ground. Figures do not include artificial wickets nor those grounds on education sites.
Using Surplus and Deficit Figures
The ground surplus and deficit figures generated by the Assessment should not be used in isolation. The figures alone need to be treated with caution for a number of reasons:
They cannot represent local qualitative or ‘on the ground’ issues, and should therefore be read in conjunction with other information gathered; They could mask issues generated by peak time demand; Identifying figures for additional pitches does not necessarily mean that new pitches need to be provided. Alternative existing sites with pitches not currently in community use could be brought into use or under-used pitches better utilised to absorb demand; and, While clubs which are identified as having capacity issues may need the use of an additional pitch, they may not have the ambition to increase the size of the club in this way, i.e. they may be content with the status quo.
Understanding the balance between existing supply and demand of grounds
To help understand the existing supply – demand balance, the following table estimates the ‘global’ picture of provision against the number of matches played on grass wickets on public and commercial pitches where matches are - 141 -
currently played. The figures suggest that there is currently no real surplus of provision in Bournemouth and a small surplus in Poole. This suggests, in both Bournemouth and Poole that there is no demonstrable need for additional grounds arising from the existing demand and that supply is ‘about right’ at the current time.
Figure 40: Existing supply and demand (use)
A B C
Existing supply Existing surplus capacity (carrying capacity, Existing demand matches per (use, matches per (A – B) season) season on grass (matches per wickets) season)
Bournemouth 332 331 +1
Poole 213 184 +31
Unmet demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘unmet demand’ as follows:
“Current unmet demand could be in the form of a team that has currently got access to a pitch for its matches but nowhere to train or vice versa. It could also be from an educational establishment that is currently using an indoor facility because of the lack of access to outdoor pitch provision. Along with a lack of pitches of a particular type being available to the community unmet demand may be due to the poor quality and therefore limited capacity of pitches in the area and/or a lack of provision and ancillary facilities which meet a certain standard of play/league requirement. League secretaries may be aware of some unmet demand as they may have refused applications from teams wishing to enter their competitions due to a lack of pitch provision which in turn is hindering the growth of the league. As it is known to exists any unmet demand recorded should be easily quantifiable e.g. a training session for one team on a weekday evening.”
- 142 -
(Paragraph B36, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
From the survey returned by the Dorset league it does not appear that there is any unmet nor latent demand across the county. There is capacity to accommodate more teams and the league has stated that it expects the number of teams to decrease in the short-term largely because of the demands on peoples’ time. Almost all clubs which responded to the survey plan to increase both junior and adult membership but currently do not have waiting lists suggesting no unmet or latent demand.
Displaced demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘displaced demand’ as follows:
“Displaced demand generally relates to play by teams or other users of playing pitches from within the study area (i.e. from residents of the study area) which takes place outside the area. It is important to know whether this displaced demand is due to issues with the provision of pitches and ancillary facilities in the study area, just reflective of how the sports are played (e.g. at a central venue for the wider area) or due to the most convenient site for the respective users just falling outside of the LA/study area. It is therefore important to establish: • What displaced demand exists and why including the amount and type of demand (e.g. a senior match on a natural grass pitch, a junior training session on an AGP); • Whether those generating the displaced demand would prefer to play within the study area and where.” (Paragraph B34, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
We have been made aware that at least one club (Winton Cricket Club) has moved to an alternative ground outside of the Borough (to Ferndown) because of issues to do with the poor quality of the pitch and facilities at Meyrick Park. The combined use of the pitches for rugby and cricket does not make it easier for a good playing surface for cricket to be maintained at the site. The club has also stopped using Winton Recreation Ground but has
- 143 -
indicated to the ECB that it would return to the Borough if quality issues could be resolved at pitches in Bournemouth.
Latent Demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘latent demand’ as follows:
“Whereas unmet demand is known to exist latent demand is demand that evidence suggests may be generated from the current population should they have access to more or better provision. This could include feedback from a sports club who may feel that they could set up and run an additional team if they had access to better provision. Details of the potential amount and type of any latent demand in the study area should be sought.” (Paragraph B37, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Market segmentation data, used above to identify overall participation in cricket also provides an estimate of latent demand – i.e. those people who would like to play the sport who do not do so at the moment. The data does not set out reasons why these people are not accessing the sport but reasons can vary and can include (amongst others) lack of transport to get to a venue, cost of playing, or availability of pitch time or personal time to play.
It suggests that 749 people in Bournemouth would like to play cricket but cannot currently do so, while the figure in Poole is 537. Figure 41 shows the types of people who would like to play and the proportion of the total that they represent.
- 144 -
Figure 41: Segments of population which would like to play cricket (number and % above 6% of resident population)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying 215 28.7 football, pints and pool
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a house and settling 134 17.9 down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older 88 11.7 children and more time for themselves
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ 85 11.3 attitude
Kev Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy 67 8.9 pub league games and watching live sport
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a house and settling 121 22.5 down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older 93 17.3 children and more time for themselves
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ 76 14.2 attitude
- 145 -
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying 67 12.5 football, pints and pool
Kev Pub League Team Mates: Blokes who enjoy 44 8.2 pub league games and watching live sport
Roger & Early Retirement Couples: Free-time 33 6.1 Joy couples nearing the end of their careers
Frank Twilight Year Gents: Retired men with some pension provision and limited sporting 32 6 opportunities Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
If the figures for latent demand are applied to the number of players (24) which might typically make up a team (including ‘squad’ players), data suggests that there is demand for an additional 31 adult teams in Bournemouth and 22 adult teams in Poole. On the basis of a team playing 16 league matches per season (on the basis of the average number of games played by teams in the Dorset leagues), with 8 being played at a ‘home’ ground and a standard / adequate quality wicket being able to accommodate 4 matches per wicket per season, this equates to each team needing 2 wickets, or 15.5 additional wickets in Bournemouth and 11 in Poole. However, it seems likely that 20% at most would start to play cricket from this latent demand (equating to 6.2 teams in Bournemouth and 4.4 in Poole) meaning that 13 additional wickets would be needed in Bournemouth and 9 in Poole.
This does not necessarily mean that these grounds would need to be new and additional if there is surplus capacity within the existing supply of wickets and grounds in the Boroughs.
However, these figures need to be grounded. The figures assume that the data gathered and used in the market segmentation tool is accurate. In addition, survey responses from the Dorset league and from clubs which have - 146 -
home grounds in Bournemouth and Poole have identified, as noted above, that there is currently no unmet nor latent demand, although clubs plan to increase membership overall in the future. From the figures above, it appears, at least that there is interest in Bournemouth and Poole from some people to start playing and so with the right targeting and marketing, clubs may be able to attract new players into the adult game, where the main issue with membership seems to be (most clubs have reported an increase in junior membership in recent years).
Club aspirations to increase membership
As noted above, almost all clubs which responded to the survey plan to increase both junior and adult membership but currently do not have waiting lists. However, in recent years while adult membership in Bournemouth and Poole seems to have remained reasonably stable across teams as a whole (with 5 club responding that membership has decreased, 4 that it has increased and 2 that it has stayed the same) junior membership seems to have increased overall. The challenge will be to retain junior members as they move through to the senior game at the same time as preventing the drop-off of adult membership.
When asked what limits their capacity to grow, a few responses highlighted that it was about the quality and accessibility to facilities, coaches and volunteers, but the overwhelming response was in relation to quantity. 4 responses stated that the quantity of facilities limited their capacity to grow, while 7 responses highlighted that the quantity of coaches is the key issue and a further 7 also stated that the quantity of volunteers was the key issue. While individual comments have been gathered on pitches and ancillary facilities and are highlighted above, the issue of a lack of coaches and volunteers to grow the game stands out.
- 147 -
Nature and extent of play at sites with unsecured community use
We understand that Poole Grammar School is used for training by Poole Town Cricket Club and that its use is unsecured (i.e. that there is no formal contract in place).
Known priorities, planned improvements and aspirations for grounds
Clubs, teams and leagues
We have been made aware of the following aspirations and plans for the development of the clubs’ facilities and pitches:
Poole Town Cricket Club is holding discussions about securing practice facilities in Poole Park. Branksome and Parkstone Cricket Club is seeking funding to improve site screens, nets. etc. Suttoners Cricket Club would like to add a disabled toilet and an umpire's [and referee's] room to their facility at Kinson Manor. Broadstone Cricket Club has identified that they have aspirations to improve the playing surface and outfield at The Delph ground.
NGB
ECB’s priorities in Bournemouth and Poole are identified earlier in this assessment.
- 148 -
Delivering existing plans and programmes
The Literature and Strategic Review of plans and programmes currently operational in Bournemouth and Poole has identified the following projects which will need to be considered alongside recent evidence gathered on pitch provision to help determine the strategic approach to fill gaps in provision in the period to 2026.
- 149 -
Figure 42: Projects which relate to future strategic provision of cricket pitches in Bournemouth and Poole
Progress Source Does it remain a Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete priority? * ongoing Strouden Playing Fields Parks – new cricket wicket and extension Investment Plan to changing room to include kitchen 2009-13 up to £250,000
Development of pavilions and Poole community facilities at Whitecliff Infrastructure Yes pavilion and Branksome Dene Programme, community room. 2011
Bournemouth Bourne-mouth - Cricket: improve specialist and Poole No progress, no maintenance of local authority Playing Pitch Poole funds to make pitches (short – medium term) Strategy and progress. Action Plan, 2008
Bournemouth Cricket: improve pitch quality to Bournemouth - and Poole ameliorate concerns about pitch Artificial wicket Playing Pitch Poole safety and assist club promotion added at Strategy and (short – medium term) Winton. Action Plan, 2008
- 150 -
Progress Source Does it remain a Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete priority? * ongoing Bournemouth Cricket: develop facilities and and Poole Bourne-mouth - opportunities for senior women’s and Depends on Playing Pitch No significant Poole junior girl’s competitive cricket demand Strategy and progress. (medium term) Action Plan, 2008
- 151 -
Future Demand
Team Generation Rates and number of grounds and wickets equivalent
To get an idea about the future number of teams that might be formed from an increasing population during the strategy period to 2026 (and therefore future demand for grounds and wickets), population projections can be applied to age groups used for competitive play. Team generation rates are calculated simply by dividing the current population within an age group for a sport by the number of teams in the area within that age group at the current time, with the ratio then applied to projected population for that age group.
The following table sets out the projected number of cricket teams for Bournemouth and Poole and translates them to the number of grounds that the number of teams may need (which could be provided either from existing stock or from additional grounds if needed).
The figures need to be used with some caution. Figures are generated by sub- area and on the basis of where home teams play. In some sub areas there are no registered home grounds and so figures can show that there are no teams generated from these areas. However, at the same time, there may be players who live in a sub-area with no grounds. This will be offset to a degree by sub- areas which have a lot of grounds generating a higher team generation rate than occurs in reality.
Therefore, to put the sub area derived figures in context, figures are presented for Bournemouth and for Poole as a whole to ensure balance and more accurate reflection of the make-up of teams ‘on the ground’. Full Team Generation Rate calculations are appended as a separate file to this report for information, should interrogation of the data be required.
- 152 -
Figure 43: Impact of Population increase in Bournemouth on the numbers of teams
Number of Current Future Potential Current teams in population population in Population Change in Team Age Groups age group in age group age group Change in Team Generation within the within the within the Age Group Numbers in Rate area area area Age Group
Cricket Open Age Mens (18-55yrs) 12 53,420 50,920 4,451 -2,500 -0.6
Cricket Open Age Womens (18-55yrs) 0 50,050 46,720 0 -3,330 0
Cricket Junior Boys (7-18yrs) 5 10,390 11,680 2,078 1,290 0.6
Cricket Junior Girls (7-18yrs) 0 10,000 11,990 0 1,990 0
Bournemouth Totals 12 123,860 121,310 - -2,550 0
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
- 153 -
Figure 44: Impact of Population increase in Poole on the numbers of teams
Current Number of Future Potential population teams in population in Population Change in in age Current Sport and Age Groups age group age group Change in Team group TGR within the within the Age Group Numbers in within the area area Age Group area
Cricket Open Age Mens (18-55yrs) 19 35,950 32,790 1,892 -3,160 -1.7
Cricket Open Age Womens (18-55yrs) 1 35,510 31,860 35,510 -3,650 -0.1
Cricket Junior Boys (7-18yrs) 24 9,730 10,890 405 1,160 2.9
Cricket Junior Girls (7-18yrs) 1 9,530 10,920 9,530 1,390 0.2
Poole Totals 45 90,720 86,460 - -4,260 1.3
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
- 154 -
Additional (Increase in) Participation
Most National Sports Governing Bodies have targets to increase participation in the period from 2013 to 2017 (their Sport England funding period). These tie investment in facilities and sports development to increases in the number of people playing their sport at least once a month for 30 minutes or more.
For cricket, at the time of writing this assessment, there was no agreed target set nationally for the increase in the number of people playing between 2013 and 2017. In order to get an appreciation of the potential increase over the strategy period to 2026, therefore, a range of percentage increases has been applied to the projected figures above. This is shown in Figure 45 below for Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 45: Potential additional numbers playing as a result of participation increases by 2026
Number of people Increase in participation playing (16+) and
across all sub-areas 1% 3% 5% 10% in 2013
Bournemouth 1,296 13 39 65 130
Poole 974 10 29 49 97
Notes: assumes even growth between age groups
Applying a number of 24 players making up a squad to service a team, this equates to potential demand for up to 5 teams in Bournemouth and up to 4 in Poole.
Translating this to the equivalent number of pitches on the basis of a team needing a home ground to play at every other week (therefore 0.5 ground per team), this equates to a need by 2026 for up to 2.5 grounds in Bournemouth and up to 2 in Poole depending on how much participation increases. These
155
may be able to be accommodated within existing supply and does not necessarily mean that new additional grounds will be required. It should be noted that this does not include any additional requirement from junior teams as there is no data on participation levels in the under 16 ages.
Total additional teams by 2026
From figures above, the following table sets out calculations for the number of additional teams in total which may arise from changes in participation, additional teams generated by increases in population and the return of displaced teams.
- 156 -
Figure 46: Changes to the number of teams in Bournemouth and Poole
A B C D E F
Potential number of Total Potential number Displaced Additional Additional additional teams from additional of additional demand (teams teams teams from latent demand / growth estimated teams from latent playing outside generated participation potential (less teams in demand / growth of area wishing in 2026 < increase requirement from 2026 potential to return) participation increase) > (A+B+D+E)
Bournemouth 0 +5 +6.2 +1.2 +4 +10.2
Poole +1.3 +4 +4.4 +0.4 0 +5.7
Total 1.3 9 10.6 1.6 4 +15.9
Notes: ^ based on 8 wickets per pitch < while juniors play on a mix of artificial and grass wickets, the figures include both adult and junior teams generated by 2026. > assumes that most, if not all, of the participation increase from existing numbers taking part increases from latent demand in existing population.
157
Additional grounds required by 2026
Using the figures above, the following table sets out the number of additional grounds which could be required arising from additional teams being generated from latent demand, participation increases and growth in population. The figures suggest that there is a sufficient demand for between 2 and 5 additional grounds in Bournemouth and between 1 and 3 in Poole. The figures make a number of assumptions as noted in the notes for the table below. Making these assumptions mean that provision for the future should be based upon a ‘plan, monitor, manage’ approach. With the figures below representing a possible scenario should the estimated changes in the number of people playing cricket become reality, actual demand ‘on the ground’ should be closely monitored to ensure that provision matches demonstrable demand before additional grounds are provided.
Figure 47: Future estimated additional demand for pitches
No. of Range of No. of Additional wickets No. of pitch pitches to home teams by required to equivalents cater for matches 2026^ accom. > additional + matches# demand <
Bournemouth 10.2 81.6 20.4 2.6 2 - 5
Poole 5.7 45.6 11.4 1.4 1 - 3
Notes: ^ from Figure above + based upon each team playing 8 home matches a season (16 home and away) # based upon 4 matches accommodated on a ‘standard’ condition wicket > based upon one ground having 8 wickets < with the upper end of the range being a straight calculation of each team requiring half a ground to play home matches (one full ground every other match)
158
Approach to the strategy for cricket
Establishing an accurate estimate of future requirements for cricket needs to be developed on a more site-specific basis than with other pitch sports. This is because of carrying capacities depend on the number of wickets and games played together with overall quality of the wickets. Therefore, it is recommended that the projected requirements should be used as a ‘direction of travel’ and be augmented with information on levels of demand through time.
The approach to the assessment conclusions and overall strategy recommendations for cricket has been as follows:
1. Work through issues concerning supply identified above to resolve any existing shortfalls and concerns about grounds and wickets. 2. Apply the estimated requirements for additional teams identified above and establish the additional demand for wickets and grounds. 3. Apply the resulting figures to existing provision to see if the additional teams require new additional wickets and / or grounds.
The strategy for cricket has been developed on the basis that clubs will tend to use grounds which are publicly owned or a ground that they own. School grounds and those operated on a commercial basis form an important part of supply but it can be more difficult for clubs to access them over the long term and for match play (although a number of teams use these pitches for training and practice). However, it should be acknowledged that school and commercial grounds could play a role in future if supply becomes narrow in future years.
159
Conclusions
Cricket in Bournemouth and Poole, on the whole, is well provided for. The key issues in Bournemouth relate to constrained boundaries on some older grounds surrounded by housing and a need to improve some grounds to a better standard, with most of those grounds under local authority control. Some grounds have additional pressure on them, particularly where it is not dedicated to cricket but is shared by football or rugby during the winter months. There are additional issues around Dean Park, a high quality ground (and probably the best in Bournemouth) currently overplayed but yet under pressure from sale by its owners, which if not retained for cricket in the future, could mean two teams having to relocate to an alternative ground or grounds. Clubs may look to the local authority and ECB / Dorset Cricket to help find alternative grounds if the loss of Dean Park is unavoidable as there are no commercially provided grounds in the town. However, with supply overall balanced with demand, Dean Park (and capacity provided by other grounds in Bournemouth) should be protected from loss.
In Poole, the position is different with few if any boundary issues and fewer quality issues. The pressure in Poole is that from existing teams, where there are a much higher number than those in Bournemouth and the consequential impact this has on capacity at some grounds, for example, The Delph and Branksome Recreation Ground. Quality is yet to be compromised at those grounds under pressure but increased use could challenge this position in the future. Poole has two commercially operated grounds of significance, which are important to the overall supply and also important because of the potential for costs to increase for teams which use them. Should costs prove too high for clubs and teams, there may an expectation that the local authority should help to provide a ground for those displaced.
However, we understand that, locally, some clubs are tending to want to take more control over their grounds (in terms of security of tenure and maintenance) and they may need to work with the local authority, owners of grounds and Dorset Cricket / ECB in the future to develop a more commercial or community club trust based model to ensure increased control over the 160
ground they use. Proposals identified below for changes to grounds, should be considered within the context of on-going discussions with clubs about the potential transfer of responsibilities.
Looking to 2026, estimations of demand have suggested a requirement for additional capacity in both Bournemouth and Poole, although some of this requirement may be able to be accommodated within the existing supply of grounds, if carrying capacity can be increased by improving quality. However, the ability to accommodate additional teams at existing grounds will depend on the exact nature of the teams being generated. For example, junior teams may not need new grass wickets or the increase in teams might be predominantly for evening matches which could lend itself to use of existing grounds if quality can be improved and maintained.
Bournemouth and Poole
Within the context of specific recommendations for Bournemouth and Poole below, the focus for cricket in Bournemouth and Poole should be:
To monitor the balance between supply and demand to ensure that capacity is available to accommodate demand and requirements of clubs; To protect the existing capacity of grounds, where demand requires it, by seeking to prevent their loss. Where their loss is unavoidable and there remains demand for the capacity and quality provided, compensate their loss through additional and / or new replacement capacity to accommodate the existing carrying capacity or matches played (whichever is greater). Such compensatory provision should be provided to a ‘good’ quality (i.e. accommodating 5 matches per wicket per season and provision of appropriate ancillary facilities) within the Borough; Should the demand for grounds during the period of this strategy (to 2026) show a demonstrable long-term surplus capacity across a Borough, the following criteria (amongst others of relevance to the local authority) should be considered in assessing which grounds should be rationalised or lost from use for cricket:
- 161 -
Quality of grounds (lower quality grounds should be considered for loss ahead of higher quality pitches); Quality of ancillary facilities (groundswith associated lower quality facilities should be considered for loss ahead of those with higher quality facilities); Ground use (those grounds used more often by teams and clubs should be retained ahead of those used less often); and, Carrying capacity (there must be sufficient practical and workable carrying capacity at other grounds to be able to accommodate any teams displaced by loss of a pitch); If demand drops during the strategy period signposting loss of grounds, retain the grounds as open space (i.e. ‘mothball’ use for cricket) should demand increase again;
Consider ‘restructuring’ use of some grounds to better accommodate play ensuring that grounds remain appropriate to the type of cricket played, age group and sex of teams, club and team needs. For example: Consider ceasing use of grounds where ongoing maintenance proves unviable or unsustainable in the long-term; Consider the realistic sustainability of retaining use of smaller grounds for adult cricket where tight boundaries compromise play and give rise to concerns about balls damaging nearby property; In response to these issues, consider provision of additional pitches to provide more suitable grounds which can also provide additional capacity to accommodate potential growth in demand for cricket. Explore options to reduce the maintenance costs of grounds and levels of subsidy per head where these levels are unsustainable in the long term, including (amongst other options) the potential for asset transfer and a greater role being played by clubs in the management, maintenance and ownership of the grounds they use. A number of clubs identified through consultation that they would like to pursue such options and discussions should be held with those clubs; Enhance existing quality of grounds identified through the assessment which are in ‘poor’ condition or where specific issues of quality and accessibility have been identified through the assessment;
- 162 -
If overplay at a ground starts to compromise the quality of the ground, consider options to provide additional capacity at other grounds to rebalance use as necessary; Explore options with clubs, leagues and the ECB to ensure that the best use is made of existing ground supply in terms of the number of matches played and on which days; Consider greater use of artificial wickets for a greater number and type of matches to absorb demand; At education establishments with cricket grounds: consider opportunities to utilise grounds for some level of community use if possible, particularly to accommodate practice for senior teams and matches for junior and youth teams. This could have a positive impact on accommodating potential growth in teams and relieve some pressure on existing grounds to help maintain quality; where clubs and teams utilise education site grounds for practice and training support the adoption of secured use contracts between the club and ground owners / managers; and, support, in principle, improvements identified through the audit. Provide additional grounds during the strategy period where demand demonstrates need for additional capacity over and above that provided by existing supply. In Bournemouth, the demand could be for between 2 and 5 grounds (with 8 ‘standard’ quality wickets) and in Poole between 1 and 3 grounds (to the same standard) in the period to 2026, if estimated levels of additional demand come to fruition; and, Where replacement or additional new grounds are provided, ensure that the number of wickets and quality are appropriate for the teams likely to use them.
Bournemouth
The following tables set out potential options for dealing with the key issues for cricket in Bournemouth now and during the strategy period. The recommendations sit alongside those identified above for ‘Bournemouth and Poole’ and the detail of which will need to be explored further through discussion between the Borough Council, clubs, the ECB, Sport England and
- 163 -
Active Dorset. With some issues remaining unresolved at the time of drafting these recommendations, the strategy will need to be adapted accordingly to deal with changes in demand as and when the position is clarified (for example, the future of Dean Park as a cricket ground).
Ground Action
Privately owned
Dean Park As a high quality dedicated cricket ground, seek to retain play there meeting the criteria set out above8. When other grounds have been improved, consider utilising them for cup and league competition finals, should the quality at Dean Park be compromised by continuing overplay.
Local authority pitches
Kinson Manor Playing Consider options for cricket at Kinson Manor. For Fields 1 (grass example, the transfer of use of the Kinson Manor wicket) senior ground to permanent use by junior teams only, to create a ‘junior hub’ should the club support Kinson Manor Playing a move to an alternative or new ground.. Fields 1 (artificial wicket)
Improve Slades Farm grounds to ‘good’ quality, thereby improving capacity and quality of the playing surface.
Provision of ‘good’ and high quality ground could Slades Farm Playing help to bring back displaced demand and provide a Fields ground for a team / teams if displaced from Dean Park.
Improve the quality of the pavilion.
Ensure that improvements remain an integral part of
8 Should its loss be unavoidable, ensure that adequate replacement of capacity and high quality is provided at existing or new grounds within the Borough in accordance with the criteria identified above. - 164 -
Ground Action the Slades Farm masterplan.
If Slades Farm is not needed as part of the solution to either or both of these possible outcomes, the ground should remain within the supply to cater for existing slight undersupply and potential additional demand generated by growth in participation.
Retain for use for junior, youth and evening cricket and improve the pavilion and changing facilities to meet standards required for these age groups and Winton Recreation type of cricket. The use of Kinson Manor solely for Ground junior and youth cricket, if the option is favourable to the club (see above), would also help to relieve existing overplay at this site.
Cease use of Meyrick Park for cricket, given quality and maintenance issues, retaining solely for rugby Meyrick Park and events as and when replacement capacity has been secured elsewhere.
Wallisdown Playing Maintain the ‘standard’ quality of grounds and Fields (grass) wickets and improve the quality of the outfield. Consider further improvements if viable such as Wallisdown Playing clubhouse and floodlighting to increase capacity. Fields (artificial)
Treat as a ‘reserve’ ground for the medium to long- term. Introduce a grass wicket and improve the Muscliff Park artificial wicket should demand require it following (artificial) changes to other grounds and if demand grows in the future.
Littledown Park 1 Maintain existing ‘standard’ condition and improve (grass wicket) access to changing rooms.
Littledown Park 2 (artificial wicket)
Kings Park 1 Improve the quality of grounds to a ‘good’ standard
- 165 -
Ground Action to increase carrying capacity, enabling existing Kings Park 2 demand to be better accommodated. Kings Park 3
Education pitches
Harewood College Discuss opportunities to utilise College grounds for (artificial) some level of community use if possible, particularly to accommodate practice for senior teams and Oakmead College of matches for junior and youth teams. This could have Technology (LeAF a positive impact on accommodating potential Academy) growth in teams and relieve some pressure on Winton Arts and existing grounds to help maintain quality. Media College 1 Where clubs and teams utilise education site grounds (artificial) for practice and training support the adoption of secured use contracts between the club and ground Winton Arts and owners / managers. Media College 2 Support, in principle, improvements identified through the audit.
Proposed replacement and additional pitches
Pelhams Park Consider the development of replacement grounds at Pelhams Park (subject to viability) to ensure that capacity is provided (at least) for senior teams currently using Kinson Senior ground if the club which plays there supports a move (see above).
Strouden Park Consider the development of replacement grounds (including necessary improvements to ancillary facilities) at Strouden Park to act as replacement capacity for the ground at Meyrick Park (i.e. retain programmed plans for Strouden Playing Fields). Provision of a ‘good’ and high quality ground could help to bring back displaced demand and could help to provide capacity if Dean Park is lost for cricket use.
- 166 -
Ground Action
King’s Park (East) – Bring back into use if demand requires in the (currently no longer medium to long-term of the strategy. used as a pitch)
Location to be When the changes outlined above have been determined delivered (i.e. the existing supply issues have been dealt with and provision made as effective and suitable as possible), provision should be made for up to 5 additional grounds (which could include reinstating King’s Park East) if additional demand ‘on the ground’ is demonstrated during the strategy period.
Poole
The following tables set out potential options for dealing with the key issues for cricket in Poole now and during the strategy period. The recommendations sit alongside those identified above for ‘Bournemouth and Poole’ and the detail of which will need to be explored further through discussion between the Borough of Poole, clubs, the ECB, Sport England and Active Dorset.
Ground Action
Local authority pitches
Poole Park (grass) Maintain the ‘good’ quality of grounds and ensure that flexibility is retained to provide sufficient wickets through the season to accommodate this quality on the site. Poole Park (artificial) If feasible, support the provision of practice nets in Poole Park.
Whitecliff Recreation Improve the ‘standard’ quality of wickets, improve
- 167 -
Ground Action Ground the quality of the outfield and ensure that flexibility is retained to provide sufficient wickets through the season to accommodate this quality on the site. Retain programmed plans to develop pavilions and community facilities at the site.
Branksome Improve the ‘standard’ quality of grounds and ensure Recreation Ground that flexibility is retained to provide sufficient wickets (grass) through the season to accommodate this quality on the site. Branksome Address issues identified in the audit around quality Recreation Ground of the artificial wicket and surface of the practice (artificial) nets area.
The Delph (grass) Maintain the ‘good’ quality of grounds.
The Delph (artificial)
Maintain the ‘standard’ quality of wickets and improve the overall quality of the ground (particularly the outfield).
Charborough Road Improve the quality of the ancillary facilities as far as the Listed status of the building allows to help grow the club (Broadstone CC) and enable junior teams to use the ground.
Commercial pitches
Canford Park Sports None required as commercial facilities. Monitor club Ltd (grass) / team use season by season to determine if pitches accommodate needs and demand and to help ensure Canford Park Sports that the grounds play an important role in overall Ltd (artificial) provision across the Borough. The Hamworthy Club Support clubs’ use of these grounds so that good (grass) quality of the grounds is maintained. The Hamworthy Club (artificial)
- 168 -
Ground Action
Education pitches
Corfe Hills School Discuss opportunities to utilise College grounds for (artificial) some level of community use if possible, particularly to accommodate practice for senior teams and Parkstone Grammar matches for junior and youth teams. This could have School a positive impact on accommodating potential Carter Community growth in teams and relieve some pressure on School (grass) existing grounds to help maintain quality and increase capacity.
Where clubs and teams utilise education site grounds for practice and training support the adoption of Carter Community secured use contracts between the club and ground School (artificial) owners / managers.
Support, in principle, improvements identified through the audit.
Proposed replacement and additional pitches
Location to be Identify a site in the short to medium term of the determined strategy which can be developed to accommodate potential capacity issues in the short term and could help to alleviate pressure on existing grounds (for example at The Delph), should demand grow and commercial providers reduce capacity or quality provided to teams using their grounds.
When the changes outlined above have been delivered (i.e. the existing immediate supply issues have been dealt with and provision made as effective and suitable as possible), provision should be made for up to a further 2 grounds if demand ‘on the ground’ is demonstrated during the medium to long term of the strategy period.
- 169 -
Rugby
Introduction
This assessment focuses on rugby union, with rugby league not played competitively in the Bournemouth and Poole area. Also references, therefore to ‘rugby’ mean rugby union. Rugby union is played on natural turf pitches at adult, youth / junior and mini level with most age groups using the same pitches without need for additional dedicated small pitches. More recently the RFU now supports training taking place on artificial grass pitches, as long as the appropriate sprung / shock-pad surface is used (that which meets the IRB regulation 22 standard9). This assessment focuses on grass pitches, with AGPs covered later in this report.
Rugby in Bournemouth and Poole is not confined to being played within the Borough boundaries. Bournemouth RFC for example plays at Chapel Gate which is north of Bournemouth and within Christchurch Borough. The University rugby team also uses the pitches at Chapel Gate. While this assessment focuses on grounds within the Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth, reference is made to the Chapel Gate facility where relevant in terms of understanding the strategic picture of grounds and the future possible solutions to accommodating play in the future in Bournemouth and Poole. The majority of pitches in both Bournemouth and Poole are located on education sites, with clubs using publicly owned sites / pitches.
Information compiled in this assessment has been taken from a number of sources including an audit of pitch quality (undertaken by officers from Bournemouth Borough Council, Borough of Poole and Active Dorset), Active Places Power (Sport England) data, consultation with the Rugby Football Union (RFU) and club and league surveys (sent out by the RFU). There were
9 IRB 22 relates to the standard required of artificial turf for rugby. See http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/21/57/42157_pdf.pdf for the full regulation. - 170 -
5 responses from 4 clubs, 2 of which have home grounds for teams in Bournemouth and Poole10.
Defining Pitches
As noted above, this assessment deals with rugby union grass pitches. AGPs are dealt with elsewhere in this report, although it is understood that, currently, no rugby teams in Bournemouth and Poole use AGPs to train on. Figure 48 reproduces pitch dimensions for a full size pitch meeting international standards.
10 Clubs which responded were Oakmedians RFC and Poole RFC (from which there were 2 responses) with home grounds within the study area, and from Bournemouth University RFC and Bournemouth RFC, both of which are based at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough. - 171 -
Figure 48: Dimension of rugby pitches
Source: Rugby Football Union, Facilities Guidace Note 2 “Grass Pitches for Rugby”, p.4, http://www.rfu.com/managingrugby/clubdevelopment/facilitiesandequipment/pitches
NGB priorities and key issues
The key issues in Bournemouth and Poole highlighted by the RFU are focused around improving the quality of existing pitches used by clubs and increasing the capacity through provision of floodlighting. Specific issues relating to the club pitches in Bournemouth and Poole are identified later in this assessment.
- 172 -
As with all nationals sport governing bodies, there is a focus on increasing participation rates in the period 2013-17.
Current Supply
There are 3 adult pitches and 1 junior pitch in Poole and 11 adult pitches and 1 junior pitch in Bournemouth with community access. Of these, 3 in Bournemouth are used by clubs and 2 are used by clubs in Poole.
- 173 -
Figure 49: Number, size (permanent markings), surface type of rugby pitches in Bournemouth and Poole in community use
(including number of which are floodlit)
Number, size and surface type of pitches Site name
Senior Junior Mini
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Meyrick Park* 2
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
LeAF Academy 2
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Winton Arts and Media College 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
The Bishop of Winchester Academy 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College 1
Iford Playing Fields 1 (1)
St Peters Catholic School (Lower School) 2
St Peters Catholic School (Upper School) 1
- 174 -
Number, size and surface type of pitches Site name
Senior Junior Mini
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community School 1
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 2
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Corfe Hills School 1
Bournemouth and Poole: All areas summary
Number, size and surface type of pitches Site name
Senior Junior Mini
Bournemouth 11 (1) 0 0
Poole 3 1 0
Notes: Figures in brackets denote number out of total supply which are floodlit. * There is a training pitch at Meyrick Park which is floodlit.
In addition to those pitches with community use, there are a number which currently have no community access. These are listed below.
- 175 -
Figure 50: Sites with no community use, no team allocated to use the pitch(es) or ‘use unknown’
Number, size and surface type of pitches Site name
Senior Junior Mini
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Bournemouth Boys Grammar School 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
St Peters Catholic School (Lower School) 2
St Peters Catholic School (Upper School) 1
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Poole High School 2
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
St Edward’s School 1
Poole Grammar School 6
Royal Marines Poole 1
Bournemouth and Poole: All areas summary
Number, size and surface type of pitches
Site name Senior Junior Mini
Bournemouth 3
Poole 10 (1)
- 176 -
The location of these pitches, both with and without community access, is shown in Figure 51 below.
- 177 -
Figure51: Location of Pitches
N.B. Map and key to be added by Borough of Poole / Bournemouth Borough Council. At the time of issue of this report, no map was made available to the consultants.
Source: Borough of Poole
178
Ownership and management type
It is important to understand the picture of ownership and management of rugby pitches. In Bournemouth the local authority owns and manages pitches where clubs play while other pitches are owned and managed by the education sector. In Poole, it is a similar picture with pitches being used by clubs are owned by the local authority (and managed by Continental Landscapes on the Council’s behalf). All other rugby pitches are owned and managed by education establishments apart from the MoD owned pitch at the Royal Marines in Hamworthy.
Figure 52: Ownership and Management of Pitches (community and non-community use pitches)
Site name Ownership Management
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Meyrick Park Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
School/College/University LeAF Academy Academies (in house)
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Winton Arts and Media Local Authority Local Authority (in house) College
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
The Bishop of Winchester School/College/University Other Academy (in house)
179
Site name Ownership Management
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
School/College/University Harewood College Academies (in house)
Iford Playing Fields Local Authority Local Authority (in house)
St Peters Catholic School School/College/University Voluntary Aided School (Lower School) (in house)
St Peters Catholic School School/College/University Voluntary Aided School (Upper School) (in house)
Site name Ownership Management
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
School/College/University Carter Community School Local Authority (in house)
School/College/University Poole High School Foundation School (in house)
Royal Marines Poole MOD MOD
Turlin Moor Recreation Local Authority Other Ground
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
School/College/University Poole Grammar School Academies (in house)
School/College/University St Edwards School Voluntary Aided School (in house)
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
School/College/University Corfe Hills School Academies (in house)
- 180 -
Notes: ‘Other’ = schools, trusts, etc.
Quality and Accessibility
The audit of pitches, which has been verified by the national sports governing bodies, identifies the following quality and accessibility scores for the pitches in Bournemouth and Poole. Pitches with issues that require attention, in terms of quality and / or access are highlighted. Pitches have been given a rating of ‘good’, ‘standard’ or ‘poor’. The report on the audit of pitches gives further details about how the rating has been derived, but in summary, the rating has been based on the quality and accessibility assessed on-site through the audits and have also then been adjusted if necessary and verified by the sport governing body.
Figure 53: Audit scores for community access pitches
Site location Overall Key issues requiring attention (if any) / pitch rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Meyrick Park 1 Poor The RFU has indicated that improvements to floodlighting (i.e. on the training pitch) are required. It has also Meyrick Park 2 Poor suggested that there are serious pitch quality issues on the senior pitches and a distinct lack of playing pitches for the size of the club (Oakmedians RFC). The club / pitches also host the university male and female rugby teams and American football.
Oakmedians RFC’s survey response highlighted that the quality of facilities limits their capacity to grow and that the quality of pitches needs improvement (indicating that the quality of pitches is ‘very poor’ and cost is ‘poor’). The club also identified a need for improvements to floodlighting at the training pitch and additional storage space for equipment. The club stated that “Activities are limited but playing and train facilities, poor pitches, poor surface, poor training area, poor floodlights. We have lost potential new
- 181 -
Site location Overall Key issues requiring attention (if any) / pitch rating members because of the above and visiting teams have declined to play on this surface.”
The audit has identified that there is no DDA access to social facilities as the kitchen and lounge are upstairs. The club survey response suggested a need for better access to social / clubhouse facilities.
The audit has also identified that significant improvements are needed to the maintenance regime of the pitches and slit drainage is needed. Ultimately, pitches should meet drainage standards recommended by the RFU.
The technical survey returned by those undertaking maintenance of the pitches suggested that overall quality of pitch 1 has improved in recent years while the overall condition of pitch 2 has remained the same. Pitch 1 has some large bare areas due to overplay although this could be because of the poor surface.
Pitch 1 saw 12 matches cancelled last season while pitch 2 saw 13 matches cancell1ed.
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
LeAF Academy Poor The audit has identified that significant improvements are 1 needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and a pipe drainage system would be needed to improve the quality of LeAF Academy Poor the pitches. 2
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Winton Arts Poor The audit has identified that significant improvements are and Media needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and a pipe College drainage system would be needed to improve the quality of the pitch.
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
- 182 -
Site location Overall Key issues requiring attention (if any) / pitch rating
The Bishop of Standard The audit has identified that minor improvements are Winchester needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and slit Academy drainage would be needed to improve the quality of the pitch.
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Poor The audit has identified that significant improvements are Harewood needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and slit College drainage would be needed to improve the quality of the pitch.
Poor The audit has identified that too much training on one side of the pitch takes place. It has also identified that significant improvements are needed to the maintenance Iford Playing regime of the pitch. Although slit drainage has been Fields identified as a requirement to improve the pitch quality, this could be challenging to achieve with the pitch located on an old tip site. Ultimately, pitches should meet drainage standards recommended by the RFU.
Site location Overall Key issues requiring attention / pitch rating
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Poor The audit has identified that significant improvements are Community needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and slit School drainage would be needed to improve the quality of the pitch.
Turlin Moor Standard The RFU has commented that the accessibility (capacity) to Recreation pitches would be improved if floodlighting could be provided. Ground 1 The audit has identified that minor improvements are
Turlin Moor Standard needed to the maintenance regime of the pitches.
Recreation Poole RFC stated in their survey response that they need
- 183 -
Site location Overall Key issues requiring attention / pitch rating Ground 2 floodlights (which have since gone in for training use) and that dog mess is a problem on the pitches. It has also stated that the changing facilities for away teams need improvement.
The survey response form Poole RFC has also indicated that the quality of the social area limits their capacity as it is shared with football teams with a partition screen dividing the rugby and football parts of the bar area.
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Corfe Hills Standard The audit has identified that minor improvements are School needed to the maintenance regime of the pitch and slit drainage would be needed to improve the quality of the pitch.
Current Demand and Capacity
Participation Rates
Participation rates are a good indicator of demand. The Sport England Market Segmentation Tool can be used to identify the number of people currently playing rugby, as well as providing a picture of the number of people who do not currently play but would like to. Figures 54 and 55 show that, spatially, there are several areas of Bournemouth which have around 2.1% - 5% of the resident population playing rugby. The rest of Bournemouth, and Poole, have rates of participation below 2.1%. Numbers suggest that 2,151 residents in Bournemouth play rugby and 1,507 residents of Poole play.
The segments of population types which play rugby the most are shown in Figure 56. The types of people playing and proportions are largely as expected for rugby.
- 184 -
Figure 54: Market Segmentation: People taking part in rugby in Bournemouth
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
Figure 55: Market Segmentation: People taking part in rugby in Poole
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 185 -
The segments of population types which play rugby the most are shown in Figure 56.
Figure 56: Segments of population who play rugby the most
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, pints 701 32.6 and pool
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with 619 28.8 a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a 437 20.3 house and settling down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty 156 7.3 males with older children and more time for themselves
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with 556 36.9 a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a 394 26.1 house and settling down with partner
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, pints 218 14.5 and pool
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty 165 10.9 males with older children and more time for themselves Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 186 -
Number of clubs and teams
Membership of clubs is a good indicator of demand from the resident population to play rugby. From survey responses from Oakmedians RFC and Poole RFC which play within Bournemouth and Poole, membership of both junior and adult members has increased in the last two years. Oakmedians RFC in Bournemouth is a large club with 275 junior and 525 adult members, while Poole RFC has 30 junior and 80 adult members. Both clubs plan on increasing their membership. Figure 57 lists the rugby clubs, number of teams and where their ‘home’ pitch is in Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 57: Rugby clubs, teams and ‘home’ pitch(es)
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
3 Adult male
1 ladies’ team
6 junior teams Oakmeadians RFC Meyrick Park (4 boys’ and 2 girls’)
7 mini teams
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
1 adult team East Dorset RFC Iford Lane Playing fields 2 mini teams
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
- 187 -
Club Teams Pitch / Site
1 adult male Poole RFC Hamworthy Rec Ground 2 mini / youth
Outside Bournemouth and Poole
4 adult
2 18-19 teams Bournemouth RFC Chapel Gate, Christchurch 6 junior teams
7 mini teams
2 adult male Bournemouth University Chapel Gate, Christchurch 1 adult ladies
Role of Education Site Pitches
The pitches located on school, Academy and College sites tend to be used solely by the education establishments themselves for dedicated play by students and pupils. However, they are included in the assessment as community accessible pitches.
The significant supply of pitches on these sites lends itself to some being considered for use by clubs, for example, for training if there is insufficient capacity or quality issues at their own ground and they are floodlit. In addition, they could be utilised at weekends for junior or youth matches if capacity is a problem at club home pitches at weekend when demand for games is at its highest.
Temporal demand
Temporal demand for games indicates when the majority of matches are played. For rugby, most matches are played over the weekend with adult
- 188 -
men playing on a Saturday and ladies on a Sunday. Junior and mini games are played on both a Saturday and a Sunday.
Carrying capacity and balance of provision
The carrying capacity of a pitch is the amount of games that the pitch can accommodate and how many it should accommodate in relation to quality. This can be estimated using the data gathered on the number of teams which play on a pitch as their ‘home’ ground. Calculations can estimate for each pitch whether it is operating at over, under or at the appropriate level for the number of games played.
While there is a good understanding of the number of match equivalent sessions that club pitches host, there is less data on regular play at school pitches. Therefore, the assumption has been made that each school pitch accommodates one match equivalent per week on each full size school pitch. The audit information on the quality of the pitch helps to augment this assumption.
Figure 58, taken from the new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, sets out how the carrying capacity is established.
Figure 59 then sets out the carrying capacity for each pitch in Bournemouth and Poole.
- 189 -
Figure 58: Method for calculating carrying capacity of pitches
How much play can a site accommodate?
Natural Grass Pitches Artificial Grass Pitches (Pitch quality rating x (Hours available in the peak NGB capacity guidance) period & surface type)
If appropriate adjust to reflect: 1. Educational use 2. Other local information and views
The amount of play a site can accommodate (its carrying capacity for community use)
Source: Playing Pitch Strategy guidance, Sport England, 2013
- 190 -
Figure 59: Number of Dedicated (Permanent) Pitches (and Quality), Games Played and Capacity
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff
Meyrick Park 1 Adult Poor 1.5 1.75
Meyrick Park 2 Adult Poor 1.5 11.5
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
LeAF Academy 1 Adult Poor 0.5 1
LeAF Academy 2 Adult Poor 0.5 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 4
(Wallisdown & Winton West, Winton East, Queen’s Park)
Winton Arts and Media College Adult Poor 0.5 1
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
191
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
The Bishop of Winchester Adult Standard 2 1 Academy
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Harewood College Adult Poor 1.5 1
Iford Playing Fields Adult Poor 1.5 2
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter Community School Junior Poor 1.5 1
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 1 Adult Standard 2.5 1
Turlin Moor Recreation Ground 2 Adult Standard 2.5 1
- 192 -
Matches per week Site name Pitch size Pitch quality capacity pitch use rating
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Corfe Hills School Adult Standard 2 1
- 193 -
Those pitches used over capacity and by how many matches per season are summarised below.
Figure 60: Sites considered to be over used
Site name Weekly overplay of matches
Bournemouth
Meyrick Park 1 0.25
Meyrick Park 2 10
LeAF Academy 1 0.5
LeAF Academy 2 0.5
Iford Playing Fields 0.5
As club rugby is played principally on non-school sites, the focus for analysis is likely to fall on these grounds. However, it is worth noting the position for schools above. There may be opportunities to explore clubs’ use of some school pitches although their use for training might be limited by the lack of floodlighting for evening sessions and inability to access pitches and changing facilities on school sites. They will lend themselves, therefore, more suitable for use by mini and midi teams than for senior matches. The audit assessment noting that the majority of school pitches are in a ‘poor’ condition suggests that opportunities may further be limited by their condition.
194
Using Surplus and Deficit Figures
The pitch surplus and deficit figures generated by the Assessment should not be used in isolation. The figures alone need to be treated with caution for a number of reasons:
They cannot represent local qualitative or ‘on the ground’ issues, and should therefore be read in conjunction with other information gathered; They could mask issues generated by peak time demand; Identifying figures for additional pitches does not necessarily mean that new pitches need to be provided. Alternative existing sites with pitches not currently in community use could be brought into use or under-used pitches better utilised to absorb demand; and, While clubs which are identified as having capacity issues may need the use of an additional pitch, they may not have the ambition to increase the size of the club in this way, i.e. they may be content with the status quo.
Unmet demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘unmet demand’ as follows:
“Current unmet demand could be in the form of a team that has currently got access to a pitch for its matches but nowhere to train or vice versa. It could also be from an educational establishment that is currently using an indoor facility because of the lack of access to outdoor pitch provision. Along with a lack of pitches of a particular type being available to the community unmet demand may be due to the poor quality and therefore limited capacity of pitches in the area and/or a lack of provision and ancillary facilities which meet a certain standard of play/league requirement. League secretaries may be aware of some unmet demand as they may have refused applications from teams wishing to enter their competitions due to a lack of pitch provision which in turn is hindering the growth of the league. As it is known to exists any unmet demand recorded should be easily quantifiable e.g. a training session for one team on a weekday evening.”
- 195 -
(Paragraph B36, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Surveys returned by the clubs suggest that there is no unmet demand. There are no waiting lists for people to join although some pitches operating at or over capacity suggest that accommodating current demand does put pressure on existing pitches.
Displaced demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘displaced demand’ as follows:
“Displaced demand generally relates to play by teams or other users of playing pitches from within the study area (i.e. from residents of the study area) which takes place outside the area. It is important to know whether this displaced demand is due to issues with the provision of pitches and ancillary facilities in the study area, just reflective of how the sports are played (e.g. at a central venue for the wider area) or due to the most convenient site for the respective users just falling outside of the LA/study area. It is therefore important to establish: • What displaced demand exists and why including the amount and type of demand (e.g. a senior match on a natural grass pitch, a junior training session on an AGP); • Whether those generating the displaced demand would prefer to play within the study area and where.” (Paragraph B34, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
There is evidence of displaced demand from clubs which play outside Bournemouth and Poole at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough. It is understood that there has been some desire expressed in the past from Bournemouth RFC to play again at a location more central within Bournemouth, rather than on the outskirts of the conurbation at Chapel Gate. Bournemouth University has suggested that playing closer to the University for all sports is easier for students as most do not have access to a car and are reliant on walking, cycling or getting the bus to get to pitches and facilities. However, the picture of existing provision and demand suggests that to provide a 3 or 4 pitch facility for a large club such as Bournemouth
- 196 -
RFC within the boundary of Bournemouth Borough will be difficult to achieve, in terms of finding suitable sites, but also financially.
While this assessment and strategy only deals with pitches within Bournemouth and Poole Boroughs, to suggest that a new facility to accommodate Bournemouth RFC within Bournemouth town should be provided would be inappropriate without further detailed assessment of pitches within Christchurch (and even East Dorset) to ensure that the level of provision at the strategic level meets demand, in the right places and to ensure that any proposals for additional provision do not provide a surplus of pitches, leaving existing facilities as “white elephants” or unviable in the short, medium and long-term.
Latent Demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘latent demand’ as follows:
“Whereas unmet demand is known to exist latent demand is demand that evidence suggests may be generated from the current population should they have access to more or better provision. This could include feedback from a sports club who may feel that they could set up and run an additional team if they had access to better provision. Details of the potential amount and type of any latent demand in the study area should be sought.” (Paragraph B37, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Market segmentation data, used above to identify overall participation in rugby also provides an estimate of latent demand – i.e. those people who would like to play the sport who do not do so at the moment. The data does not set out reasons why these people are not accessing the sport but reasons can vary and can include (amongst others) lack of transport to get to a venue, cost of playing, or availability of pitch time or personal time to play.
It suggests that 524 people in Bournemouth would like to play rugby but cannot currently do so, while the figure in Poole is 382. Figure 61 shows the
- 197 -
types of people who would like to play and the proportion of the total that they represent.
Figure 61: Segments of population which would like to play rugby (number and % above 9% of resident population)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, 152 29 pints and pool
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 132 25.2 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 83 15.8 buying a house and settling down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 50 9.5 themselves
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 118 30.9 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 75 19.6 buying a house and settling down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 53 13.9 themselves
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, 47 12.3 pints and pool Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
Translating this data to the potential number of teams that could be generated from the latent demand is unlikely to provide an accurate estimate of the number of teams that would result in reality. However, figures can provide an approximation of potential demand which may need to be
- 198 -
accommodated from the existing population. The figures should not be read in isolation but can be used to help inform the picture of potential demand which could be generated by people wishing to play. If a figure of 30 players is used as the basis to understand how many players might be needed to form a team and supporting squad, this equates to a possible total of around 17 teams in Bournemouth and 12 teams in Poole. On the basis of a team requiring a half pitch per week to play (a home game every other week), this suggests a potential demand for 8 pitches in Bournemouth and 6 in Poole. If it is assumed that around 20% of the people who would like to play actually do, this demand changes to almost 2 pitches (1.6) in Bournemouth and 1 in Poole. This does not necessarily mean that these pitches would need to be new and additional if there is surplus capacity within the existing supply of pitches in the Boroughs to accommodate play (i.e. that is sufficient carrying capacity to accommodate additional teams at existing pitches).
However, these figures need to be grounded. The figures assume that the data gathered and used in the market segmentation tool is accurate. In addition, survey responses from clubs which have home grounds in Bournemouth and Poole have identified, as noted above, that there is currently no unmet nor latent demand, although clubs plan to increase membership overall in the future.
Club aspirations to increase membership
All clubs which responded to the survey suggested that they intend to increase their membership (adult and junior) in the future although none currently have a waiting list. When asked what limits their capacity to grow, Poole RFC and Oakmedians RFC suggested that the lack (quantity) of coaches and volunteers are the main issues. Quality of facilities and pitches were also cited by clubs as impacting on membership levels.
Nature and extent of play at site with unsecured community use
We understand that there are no pitches where the community access pitches which have unsecured community use.
- 199 -
Facility and pitch priorities, planned improvements and aspirations
Clubs, teams and leagues
We have been made aware of the following aspirations and plans for the development of the clubs’ facilities and pitches:
East Dorset RFC has plans to improve the changing rooms and clubhouse; Oakmedians RFC would like to see floodlights improved at their training pitch. They have also identified a need for an additional training pitch; Poole RFC has identified a need for an additional pitch and for floodlights at their existing pitch.
NGB
The issues identified by the RFU as priorities in Bournemouth and Poole are identified earlier in this assessment.
Delivering existing plans and programmes
The Literature and Strategic Review of plans and programmes currently operational in Bournemouth and Poole has identified the following projects which will need to be considered alongside recent evidence gathered on pitch provision to help determine the strategic approach to fill gaps in provision in the period to 2026.
- 200 -
Figure 62: Projects which relate to future strategic provision of rugby pitches in Bournemouth and Poole
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing
Meyrick Park Parks
– mini-pitches for rugby to be developed on Investment Plan old bowls site estimate £30,000 2009-13
Identified priorities (programmed year of improvement and H/M/L priority) relevant to Sports Strategy:
Develop 250m cycle track (2011 - H); repair and improve skate park (2012-14 - M); 250m cycle improve school pitch drainage (2013 - H); Slades Farm track refurbish tennis / netball courts at Glenmoor Masterplan Yes completed School (2014 - H); fitness trail in school or 2012-2021 2011 park (2014 – M); full size artificial turf pitch for rugby / football (2016 – M); new sports hall (2020 - M); new girls’ changing rooms (2015 - H); outdoor climbing wall (2014 – M); and, 1km cycling / training circuit (2015 - M).
Deliver improvements to ancillary recreation Poole facilities such as accessible for all changing Infrastructure Yes rooms. Programme,
- 201 -
Progress Source Does it remain Project / proposal Underway / Document Not started Complete a priority? * ongoing 2011
Bourne-mouth - No Bournemouth significant Rugby: develop facilities and opportunities for and Poole progress other senior women’s and junior girl’s competitive Playing Pitch Poole than new rugby (medium term) Strategy and changing Action Plan, 2008 facilities at Iford.
Bournemouth and Poole Rugby: improve the quality of rugby pitches in Playing Pitch Bourne-mouth Meyrick Park (medium term) Strategy and Action Plan, 2008
Bournemouth New Rugby: improve ancillary facilities used by and Poole changing East Dorset RUFC at Iford Playing Fields Playing Pitch pavilion built (medium term) Strategy and 2012 Action Plan, 2008
- 202 -
Future Demand
Team Generation Rates and number of pitches equivalent
To get an idea about the future number of teams that might be formed from an increasing population during the strategy period to 2026 (and therefore future demand for pitches), population projections can be applied to age groups used for competitive play. Team generation rates are calculated simply by dividing the current population within an age group for a sport by the number of teams in the area within that age group at the current time, with the ratio then applied to projected population for that age group.
The following table sets out the projected number of rugby teams for Bournemouth and Poole and translates them to the number of pitches that the number of teams may need (which could be provided either from existing stock or from additional pitches if needed).
The figures need to be used with some caution. Figures are generated by sub- area and on the basis of where home teams play. In some sub areas there are no registered home pitches and so figures can show that there are no teams generated from these areas. However, at the same time, there may be players who live in a sub-area with no pitches. This will be offset to a degree by sub- areas which have a lot of pitches generating a higher team generation rate than occurs in reality.
Therefore, to put the sub area derived figures in context, figures are presented for Bournemouth and for Poole as a whole to ensure balance and more accurate reflection of the make-up of teams ‘on the ground’. Full Team Generation Rate calculations are appended as a separate file to this report for information, should interrogation of the data be required.
- 203 -
Figure63: Impact of Population increase in Bournemouth on the numbers of teams
Number of Current Future Potential Current teams in population population in Population Change in Team Age Groups age group in age group age group Change in Team Generation within the within the within the Age Group Numbers in Rate area area area Age Group
Rugby Union Senior Men (19-45yrs) 4 40,640 35,930 10,160 -4,710 -0.5
Rugby Union Senior Women (19-45yrs) 1 37,800 33,420 37,800 -4,380 -0.1
Rugby Union Youth Boys (13-18yrs) 4 5,510 6,020 1,378 510 0.4
Rugby Union Youth Girls (13-18yrs) 2 5,350 6,170 2,675 820 0.3
Rugby Union Mini/Midi Mixed (7-12yrs) 8 9,530 11,470 1,191 1,940 1.6
Bournemouth Totals 16 98,830 93,010 - -5,820 1.7
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding. Only club teams with a home ground in Bournemouth are included.
- 204 -
Figure 64: Impact of Population increase in Poole on the numbers of teams
Number of Current Future Potential Current teams in population population in Population Change in Team Age Groups age group in age group age group Change in Team Generation within the within the within the Age Group Numbers in Rate area area area Age Group
Rugby Union Senior Men (19-45yrs) 1 24,800 21,830 24,800 -2,970 -0.1
Rugby Union Senior Women (19-45yrs) 0 24,150 21,230 0 -2,920 0
Rugby Union Youth Boys (13-18yrs) 0 5,070 5,590 0 520 0
Rugby Union Youth Girls (13-18yrs) 0 5,070 5,670 0 600 0
Rugby Union Mini/Midi Mixed (7-12yrs) 2 9,110 10,540 4,555 1,430 0.3
Poole Totals 3 68,200 64,860 - -3,340 0.2
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
Only club teams with a home ground in Poole are included.
- 205 -
Additional (Increase in) Participation
Most National Sports Governing Bodies have targets to increase participation in the period from 2013 to 2017 (their Sport England funding period). These tie investment in facilities and sports development to increases in the number of people playing their sport at least once a month for 30 minutes or more.
For rugby, there is a target set nationally for around a 17% increase on the base number of people playing between 2013 and 201711. This target is applied to the existing number of people playing to get an indication of potential increase in the short-term of the strategy.
The figures will be limited to those in the 16+ age group as the market segmentation data does not count under 16 players. The data includes those who play informally and not just for a team, although most rugby outside of school play is played in a club environment.
Figure 65: Potential additional numbers playing as a result of participation increases by 2026
Additional number of Number of people people playing playing across all age applying a 17% groups in 2013 increase in participation
Bournemouth 2,151 366
Poole 1,507 256
Notes: assumes even growth between age groups
11 Derived from Sport England B2B tools web pages here https://public.sportengland.org/b2bengage/Lists/B2B%20Catalogue%20of%20NGB%20Offers/ Front%20Page.aspx . (Click on "New national priorities spreadsheet" and go to the rugby union tab.) 206
Applying an average number of players required to make a rugby squad to support a team, the figures can be translated to estimate how many teams this increase in participation could generate. The RFU does not have any figures to apply to this calculation. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use numbers for a match day team (15 on field plus 7 on the bench) plus 12 others who may be on the fringes of playing for the team, giving a figure of 34. In Bournemouth, this means that an increase in participation could result in 10 additional senior teams and in Poole the number is 7.5. These calculations relate to increase in the proportion of the resident population which plays rugby. In Bournemouth, in particular, this number may over- count in terms of the number of people from the number calculated who will actually play within the Borough. This is because of Bournemouth RFC playing at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough and so it is anticipated that perhaps a third of the increased population in the Borough would play outside of the Borough at Bournemouth RFC and therefore not impact the demand for pitches in Bournemouth so greatly as the figures suggest.
If this rationale is applied to under 16s currently playing in Bournemouth and Poole, using the figures above (and using the number of players likely to make up a squad in mini and youth age groups12), a 17% increase in under 16 participation could equate to 25 additional players, and therefore 2 additional teams in Bournemouth (12 existing teams x 12 players x 17%) and less than one additional team in Poole (4 additional players using the same basis for the calculation).
Total range of pitches required by 2026
Translating team numbers to an equivalent number of pitches can be done based on a senior team requiring 0.5 pitches to play (as two teams play on one pitch at a time) and a grass pitch accommodating 2 games a week if it is maintained to a ‘standard’ condition13. For under 16 play, mini and junior
12 12 players has been used as an average on the basis of mini tag rugby teams having up to 7-a-side on a team on the field of play, mini rugby having up to 9-a-side and midi rugby teams having up to 13-a-side. 13 Defined by RFU in the Playing Pitch Strategy guidance as being a pitch being naturally draining and maintained to a standard quality. - 207 -
teams will tend to play across a full size pitch which can therefore accommodate 2 matches or four teams (equating to 0.25 pitches per team).
Figure 66 summarises the potential change to the number of teams in Bournemouth and Poole and potential pitch equivalent requirements as a result.
- 208 -
Figure 66: Changes to the number of teams in Bournemouth and Poole and resultant requirement in ‘standard’ quality full size pitch equivalents
Equivalent Equivalent number of number of Team Additional full size full size Potential Total numbers teams from pitches pitches Age Groups Pitch from estimated size in 2026 participation latent required required demand in 2026 (TGRs) increase maintained maintained at ‘standard’ at ‘good’ condition* condition*
Adult Full 4.6 6^ 3.4 4.6 - 14 2.3 – 7 1.3 – 4
Bournemouth Youth, mini tag, Half full 16.3 2 unknown 16.3 – 18.3 4 – 4.6 2.3 – 2.6 mini, midi size
Total 6.3 – 11.6 3.6 – 6.6
Adult Full 0.9 7.5 2.4 0.9 - 10.8 0.5 – 5.4 0.3 – 3.1
Poole Youth, mini tag, Half full 2.3 0.3 unknown 2.3 - 2.6 0.7 0.3 - 0.4 mini, midi size
Total 1.2 – 6.1 0.6 – 3.5 Notes: see over…
209
Notes:
* A range is given with the upper end of the range including the potential additional change arising from latent demand and the participation increase, while the lower number in the range does not include latent demand or the participation increase. ‘Standard’ condition is a pitch which supports 2 match equivalent sessions per week. ‘Good’ condition pitches will support up to 3.5 match equivalent sessions per week. It has been assumed that 1 rugby team will need 0.5 pitch per week for a match and 0.5 pitch session per week for training (i.e. 1 pitch will accommodate 2 teams if maintained to a ‘standard’ condition and 3.5 teams if maintained at a ‘good’ condition (where pipe and slit drained). Youth, mini and mini tag require half size pitches and so a single pitch can accommodate double the number of teams.
^ This assumes that of the 10 teams estimated to be created from residents in Bournemouth who play from reaching the RFU participation target of 17% increase, around 6 might be formed at clubs within Bournemouth, with 4 being created at Bournemouth RFC who play at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough.
Numbers are rounded to the nearest full pitch.
- 210 -
Future demand – existing supply balance
The following table sets out the figures above to establish the surplus and deficiency of pitches now and in the future.
The figures suggest that there could be a need for up to 3.9 full size equivalent pitches in Bournemouth in the period to 2026 and just over 1 (1.1) in Poole. The calculations take into account future potential growth in participation rates, a proportion of latent demand starting to play and future number of possible teams arising from the team generation rate calculations.
A number of assumptions have to be made and figures represent pitches being brought forward to a ‘standard’ condition, including those which are currently ‘poor’ quality. If pitches can be improved to a ‘good’ condition, the carrying capacity of a pitch could increase up to 3.5 match equivalent sessions per week, reducing the number of pitches required. The figures also assume that the 17% participation increase target of the RFU (in the 2013-17 period) is reached. Future demand figures, taken from the calculations made above, make the assumption that a proportion of the increase in the number of teams playing will play for Bournemouth RFC at Chapel Gate outside of Bournemouth.
211
Figure 67: Surplus / Deficiency of Pitches in 2026 (community use pitches)
A B C D E F G
Carrying Existing Pitches Total capacity if surplus Future demand equivalent if additional Existing ‘poor’ capacity if maintained at Existing (carrying demand supply standard ‘poor’ pitches ‘standard’ demand capacity, pitches (balance) pitches (carrying improved to condition (pitch use, maintained to (2026) capacity, have ‘standard’ matches ‘standard’ (accommodating matches quality (matches per per week) (B – C) condition) 2 matches per improved week) per week) week) to (matches per (2026) (E – B) (F / 2) ‘standard’ week)
Bournemouth 9.5 15.5 (+6) 18 -2.5 23.2 ^ 7.7 3.9
Poole 8.5 10 (+ 1.5) 4 6 12.2 ^ 2.2 1.1
Notes: ^ Figures taken from estimated demand from additional and existing teams in Figure 66 above: up to 11.6 pitches in Bournemouth and up to 6.1 pitches in Poole if participation targets and latent demand realised. Based on pitches maintained to a ‘standard’ condition, equating to a pitch being able to host 2 matches per week. If a pitch can be maintained to a ‘good’ condition, it can host 3.5 matches per week and the requirement for the number of pitch equivalents would be lower. Figures should not be used in isolation as the ‘global’ picture can mask specific or individual issues at individual sites / pitches.
212
The requirement for additional capacity identified in column G could be higher if school pitches are removed from the picture. It is understood that club rugby is not played at school sites. If this continues to be the case and school sites cannot be part of the solution to accommodating growth (for example they could host junior and mini rugby where use is likely to have less of an impact on the quality of the pitch overall) and their condition is not improved alongside club pitches as a priority, figures will suggest a change in the requirement.
Figure 68 below maps this scenario out, where the removal of school supply as a potential source of play or training (if increasing demand and participation only takes places at club pitches) increases the requirement from 3.9 pitches to 7.5 additional pitches in Bournemouth and from 1.1 pitches to 3.6 in Poole.
If this scenario emerges with schools not being able to be part of the solution to accommodating growth in participation, it will be more important to ensure that pitches are of a much higher quality, given that a pitch in ‘good’ condition can accommodate up to 3.5 match equivalent sessions per week, rather than the 2 matches on which the calculations have been based. If new additional growth was accommodated on ‘good’ quality pitches, the number required would reduce from 8.6 in Bournemouth to 4.9 pitches and from 3.6 in Poole to 2 pitches.
213
Figure 68: Surplus / Deficiency of Pitches in 2026 (community use pitches) if schools factored out of supply
A B C D E F G H
Carrying Pitches Pitches Existing capacity if Future demand Total equivalent if equivalent if surplus Existing ‘poor’ additional maintained maintained Existing capacity if (carrying supply standard demand at ‘standard’ at ‘good’ demand ‘poor’ pitches capacity, pitches (balance) condition condition (carrying (pitch improved to pitches
have (2026) (accommoda (accommoda capacity, use, ‘standard’ maintained to quality ting 2 ting 3.5 matches matches ‘standard’ (matches (B – C) improved matches per matches per per week) per week) condition) per week) to (matches per week) week) (2026) (E – B) ‘standard’ week) (F / 2) (F / 3.5)
Bournemouth 4.5 6 (+1.5) 13 -7 23.2 ^ 17.2 8.6 4.9
Poole 5 5 (+ 0) 2 3 12.2 ^ 7.2 3.6 2
214
Conclusions
Rugby has a tradition of playing on natural turf (grass) pitches which tend to be subject to subjected to significant wear and tear and therefore have additional pressure to maintain quality to a ‘standard’ condition. More recently, technology has moved sufficiently forward to enable training to take place on artificial grass surfaces where adequately sprung (where a pitch meets the IRB regulation 22 standard14) and such surfaces can be shared with football. Club rugby tends to be played on pitches dedicated to a club as a home ground and the supply of pitches at schools does not feature in use by club teams for matches or training, yet, there is a reasonably good supply of school pitches across the Boroughs.
The clubs which play in Bournemouth and Poole are Oakmedians RFC, East Dorset RFC and Poole RFC which play at Meyrick Park, Iford Lane Playing Fields and Turlin Moor Recreation Ground respectively. While Oakmedians is the largest club of these three, Bournemouth RFC is larger still, although it plays at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough. While this might be the case, it is likely that much of its membership is drawn from residents in Bournemouth Borough. Bournemouth University also plays at Chapel Gate, a situation which can limit its growth due to the difficulty for students to get to the facility from where they live (as most will not have access to a car). The assessment has only been able to focus in detail on those clubs with pitches within the boundaries of Bournemouth and Poole Boroughs, although the facility at Chapel Gate is an important part of supply to Bournemouth residents playing rugby.
Although tradition has dictated that clubs use their ‘own’ facilities and home pitch as a base, the supply of pitches at school sites may prove useful in helping to address need and demand for training purposes in the future in Bournemouth and Poole. With limited land on which to develop new pitches, opportunities to make the most of existing pitches and increase their carrying
14 IRB 22 relates to the standard required of artificial turf for rugby. Pitches need to be tested every 3 years to remain IRB 22 compliant. See http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/21/57/42157_pdf.pdf for the full regulation. 215
capacity by introducing improvements to quality will need to be the initial priority for the strategy. Schools’ supply may provide opportunities but will probably not be the answer to accommodate significant amounts of play due to condition, lack of floodlighting for evening training and potential difficulties in accessing school facilities and changing facilities. School facilities are best used for junior and mini rugby and are not likely to be suitable for senior matches.
Figures suggest a range of pitch numbers will be required in addition to the existing supply. If existing pitches rated as in ‘poor’ condition are improved and see carrying capacity (the number of match equivalent sessions they can host) increase, resulting in ‘standard’ quality pitches, the additional requirement for pitches will fall. Likewise, if pitches can be improved or provided to ‘good’ conditions, the number of pitches required will fall again. However, on the basis of existing ‘poor’ pitches being improved to a ‘standard’ condition and school supply taken into account, the estimated demand for additional pitches in Bournemouth is for almost 4 pitches and in Poole, just over 1 pitch. If school supply is excluded and the majority of play continue to be at club based pitches, the number required increases to just over 8 pitches in Bournemouth and almost 4 in Poole. However, if new additional pitches can be developed to a ‘good’ standard, the requirement falls to up to 5 pitches in Bournemouth and up to 2 in Poole. It is therefore sensible to plan for a range of provision to accommodate demand for up to 5 pitches in Bournemouth and up to 2 in Poole. All existing and new pitches should meet drainage standards recommended by the RFU.
Given limitations on land available to develop new additional pitches and future estimated increases participation rates being challenging (and perhaps unrealistic), a range of ways of accommodating this demand should be pursued sequentially prior to identifying locations for new additional pitches.
Bournemouth and Poole
The key areas of focus in Bournemouth and Poole should be to take a sequential approach to improving capacity by:
- 216 -
Protecting the existing stock and supply of rugby pitches available to club teams; Improving capacity at club pitches by making improvements to drainage and maintenance regimes and to relieve pressure on overplayed pitches by making other pitches more accessible (for example by introducing floodlighting where the additional play will not compromise quality); Discussing opportunities with schools, the RFU and local clubs to utilise school pitches for training for junior / mini rugby on the basis of providing assistance to improve the quality and carrying capacity of those pitches; Ensure that new additional artificial grass pitches being developed in response to the demand identified elsewhere in this report are capable of hosting rugby training (and meet IRB regulation 22 standard) as well as play for football, so that rugby clubs can relieve pressure on existing pitches by training on the AGP; Where new additional pitches are required, provide them to meet a ‘good’ standard which accommodates 3.5 match equivalent sessions per week (being pipe and slit drained and meeting RFU drainage standards), locate them close to existing club facilities and pitches if possible and take into account opportunities, if they arise, of utilising existing football pitches where rationalised; and, Closely monitor how demand increases during the lifetime of the strategy. As projections of demand and need are based on assumptions around increasing participation, which may or may not come to fruition, changes responding to additional provision should be responsive to demonstrable levels of demand prior to going ahead.
Bournemouth
In Bournemouth, the focus for the strategy should be to:
Improve the quality of club pitches and training area at Meyrick Park and increase the carrying capacity (and thereby also reducing cancellations) by: Improving floodlights at the training pitch;
- 217 -
improving drainage at the pitches to standards recommended by the RFU; ensuring that the club gets access to some training time at the new proposed AGP at Slades Farm when delivered; ensuring that some access to the Slades Farm AGP is given to the University rugby teams for training (who currently use Meyrick Park pitches to train); delivering proposals to introduce new mini pitches on the old bowls site adjacent to the adult pitches; exploring opportunities to set out an additional training pitch at the site alongside existing adult pitches. Improve the quality of pitches at Iford Playing Fields and increase carrying capacity by: improving drainage and the maintenance regime at the pitch; Support improvements to the quality of ancillary facilities: by making improvements to accessibility of social facilities at Meyrick Park / Oakmedians RFC. Seek to identify opportunities for junior and mini teams to train and play matches at one or more school pitches if necessary; Should the above measures not satisfactorily resolve the significant capacity issues for Oakmedians RFC and issues experienced by East Dorset RFC in the short term, seek quickly to identify a location for an additional full size pitch to accommodate demand; and Identify locations for up to 4 further additional pitches to satisfy demand (if demonstrable) during the medium and long-term of the strategy period.
Poole
In Poole, the focus for the strategy should be:
Support improvements to the maintenance regime to ensure that quality remains at ‘standard’ condition; In the medium term, improve the quality of the pitches at Turlin Moor to meet ‘good’ condition if possible, to increase the carrying capacity to help meet anticipated growth in participation;
- 218 -
Support improvement to the quality of ancillary facilities: By making improvements to the social area at Turlin Moor currently shared by football and rugby teams. Seek to identify opportunities for junior and mini teams to train and play matches at one or more school pitches; Identify locations for up to 2 further additional pitches to satisfy demand (if demonstrable) during the medium and long-term of the strategy period.
- 219 -
Artificial Grass Pitches
Introduction
Artificial Grass Pitches or AGPs provide an all-weather opportunity for playing a variety of sports, being predominantly used for hockey and football, with some types of surface becoming suitable for rugby training (where they meet the IRB regulation 22 standard15). They provide a playing surface which retains its quality over the long-term (for around 10 years) after being built and because of the robustness of the surface can be used constantly throughout the day, 7 days a week. Comparatively, grass pitches cannot be used very frequently without their condition deteriorating, unless maintained to a very high standard at high cost. Most AGPs are located at leisure centre, commercial sports clubs, schools or club facilities which means that there is some control over their accessibility and therefore quality and security. While they can be used as indoor or outdoor pitches, they are most commonly used as outdoor pitches.
The assessment which follows make use of a number of sources of data which paint part of the picture of demand and need. AGPs have the benefit of being included in the emerging playing pitch assessment guidance, the facilities planning model used by Sport England (a spatial supply – demand modelling tool) and Sport England’s Sports Facilities Calculator used for understanding needs arising from resident populations. These, together with consultation responses from stakeholders, are used to determine the strategy for AGPs in Bournemouth and Poole.
Defining Pitches
This assessment considers full size artificial grass pitches used for hockey matches and training and for football training and dedicated small pitches used predominantly for small sided informal football such as seven-a-side and five-a-side games. Grass football pitches are dealt with earlier in this report.
15 IRB 22 relates to the standard required of artificial turf for rugby. See http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/21/57/42157_pdf.pdf for the full regulation. - 220 -
Sport England has produced guidance16 on the various surface types and dimensions required for pitches to accommodate sports. The most common pitches used are ‘3G’ or ‘long-pile’ used mainly for football and rugby training and sand and water filled ‘short-pile’ favoured for hockey. Figure 69 below reproduces the preferred surface types for football, hockey and rugby.
Figure 69: Common surface construction of AGPs
Source: p.22, Sport England Design Guidance “Artificial Surfaces for Outdoor Sport”, 2012, http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost- guidance/artificial-sports-surfaces/
The England Hockey Board has a policy on the use of the different types of AGP surface, which is reproduced in Figure 70 below. The preference tends to be for sand or water filled short pile (25mm) surfaces.
16 See http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost- guidance/artificial-sports-surfaces/ - 221 -
Figure 70: England Hockey Board AGP Policy
Source: EHB “3G Policy, July 2010”, http://www.englandhockey.co.uk/page.asp?section=102§ionTitle=Guidance
AGPs have for some time been used for informal play, friendly matches and training for football clubs and teams. However, recently, the FA has sanctioned play on AGP pitches in order to reduce match cancellation and maintenance costs to grass pitches. The preferred surface for football is 60
- 222 -
mm 3G. As from the 2014/15 season, pitches will need to be on a FA 3G register for teams to be able to play competitive fixtures (step 7 down).
The different surface requirements of hockey and football make it difficult for teams to share use, although informal use can be made for football on sand filled pitches if necessary. A better match for use of AGPs is between football and rugby as the surface requirements are similar.
NGB priorities and key issues
England Hockey has confirmed that the key focus for hockey in Bournemouth is at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough and is likely to continue to be so with no real requirement to move Bournemouth club play to a new site in Bournemouth Borough. One of the pitches at Chapel Gate has recently had investment from Sport England and the National Hockey Federation to provide a new surface for one AGP. Further investment is likely to be sought to improve the second pitch and there could be an opportunity in the future to provide an additional pitch at the site.
In Poole, the key issue is the quality of associated facilities such as social / refreshment opportunities and changing rooms rather than the pitch itself. This poses a challenge to the aim of driving up participation when the social aspect of playing club hockey is lost.
Participation amongst women in Bournemouth and Poole has been identified as being below the national average.
Other key issues from England Hockey’s perspective in relation to pitch provision are the insurance costs for hockey clubs to play on a 3G pitch, the preference of pitch type (and therefore pressure from more commercially attractive football use) and the need to broaden the hockey ‘offer’ through programmes such as ‘Back to Hockey’ and ‘rush (5-a-side) hockey to drive participation rates and introduce new players to the sport.
- 223 -
The Football Association’s key issues for AGPs are closely related to the existing provision of grass pitches. AGPs can play an important role in improving the availability and capacity of pitches for competitive matches, which is being acknowledged in the proposed provision of a new AGP to replace a grass pitch at Hamworthy United FC (The County Ground) in Poole. The undersupply of AGPs to serve informal play and training has also been acknowledged as an existing problem, with a key priority for the FA being the provision of a new AGP at Slades Farm in Bournemouth.
Current Supply
The current supply of full size AGPs and their predominant or shared use is set out in the table below.
Figure 71: Artificial Grass Pitches, location and surface type with community access
Number Predominant use (of Surface (football / Site name which Size type hockey / are dedicated small-sided floodlit) football) Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff) Talbot Heath School 1 Sand filled Full Hockey
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park) Sir David English 1 (1)* Short pile Full Football Leisure Centre rubber (although crumb 3G permanently (40mm) sub-divided for 3 x 5 or 7-a-side pitches)
- 224 -
Number Predominant use (of Surface (football / Site name which Size type hockey / are dedicated small-sided floodlit) football)
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West) Ashdown Leisure 1 (1) Sand filled Full Hockey / football Centre
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood) Canford Park Sports 1 (1) Rubber Full Football Ltd crumb 3G
Canford School 1 Sand filled Full Hockey Sports Centre
Canford School 1 (1) Water Full Hockey Sports Centre based
Notes: * use of floodlighting not allowed at weekends
Role of shared use sites
AGPs on shared education sites (at schools, colleges and Academies) play an important role in Bournemouth and Poole given the low number of pitches available (particularly those of full size). In Bournemouth, the Talbot Heath School has a full size AGP understood to be used predominantly for hockey, while in Poole, the Canford School Sports Centre provides two pitches more suitable for hockey and Carter School provides one pitch for football. As can be seem from the table above, this forms a substantial proportion of total supply of full size pitches in Bournemouth and Poole. While an important part of the supply, availability at these sites will be restricted to peak time use during weekday evenings and weekends outside of school terms.
- 225 -
Local catchment areas of full size community access AGPs in Bournemouth and Poole
It is important to gain an understanding of the catchment areas of use for sports facilities. Catchments help to build the picture of use and illustrate a spatial distribution of facilities and coverage, showing gaps in provision where users would have to travel further to access facilities. Local catchments for AGPs are estimated using a number of sources:
Discussion with managers of facilities (such as sports or leisure centres); Club and league surveys; The Sport England FPM Report; Population density; Proximity of one facility to another, similar, facility; Discussion with officers from local authorities; Experience from undertaking similar work elsewhere in the country; and, Travel times by car established through Department for Transport and the South East Dorset Multi-Modal Transport Study data on average speeds17.
The catchment for full size AGPs in Bournemouth and Poole has been identified, from these sources, as being a 20 minute drive-time at 23 mph or a 20 minute walk if on foot. Figure 72 maps the impact of the locally derived catchments.
17 Road traffic speeds in predominantly urban areas will vary from peak to off-peak times and season to season but a good guide for average speed is to use Department for Transport average speeds, which for Bournemouth and Poole in 2013 was estimated as being 23mph at peak times (see source, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/congestion-on-local-authority- managed-a-roads-april-to-june-2013 ). The SE Dorset Multi-modal Transport Study suggests average speeds of between 41 and 46 kmph (25 – 28 mph) in 2008 (Fig. 10.4 http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=175733&filetype=pdf) between peak and inter peak periods. - 226 -
Figure 72a: Location of Full Size AGP pitches
N.B. Map and key to be added by Borough of Poole / Bournemouth Borough Council. At the time of issue of this report, no map was made available to the consultants.
Source: Borough of Poole
227
Figure 72b: Locally Derived Drive-time Catchment Areas for full size AGPs
N.B. Map and key to be added by Borough of Poole / Bournemouth Borough Council. At the time of issue of this report, no map was made available to the consultants.
Source: Borough of Poole
228
The catchment areas do not mean that those falling outside of a catchment area do not or cannot access facilities. The areas reflect the places that the majority of users will come from to access facilities.
Dedicated Small 7 and 5-a-side Football Pitches
Dedicated small enclosed football pitches predominantly used for 5-a-side football, strictly speaking, are classed neither as multi-use games areas nor artificial grass pitches, although some do have an AGP surface. However, they form an important part of the supply for football, particularly informal play and training, alongside full size artificial grass pitches which can be used flexibly to accommodate 3 or more small sided pitches for informal play and training (across the width of the pitch). For the purposes of understanding the supply which supports football on a broad basis, it is important to have an understanding of the contribution these small pitches play to the overall supply, although it is unlikely that additional small pitches would be recommended if a gap in provision is identified given that full size AGPs are so much more flexible. That said, small pitches can often be an important additional to schools and commercial operators, but additional provision in this form is likely to be steered more by a specific local demand (e.g. to accommodate play for pupils / students) or by a commercial decision.
- 229 -
Figure 73: Number of dedicated small 5-a-side football pitches with community access
Number Predominant use (of Surface (football / Site name which Size type hockey / are dedicated small-sided floodlit) football) Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Pelhams Park Leisure 8 (8) Rubber 5-a-side Football Centre crumb 3G
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park) Sir David English 1 (1)* Short pile Full Football Leisure Centre rubber (although crumb 3G ‘permanently’ (40mm) subdivided for 3 x 5 or 7-a-side pitches)
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Littledown Leisure 6 (6) Rubber 5-a-side Football Centre crumb 3G
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town) Carter Community 2 (2) Long pile 3G Two-thirds Football School full size
- 230 -
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney) Bournemouth 2 (2) Rubber 5-a-side Football University Sports crumb 3G Centre
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood) The Hamworthy Club 1 (1) 3G 5-a-side Football
Figure 74 below maps the catchment area for small AGP pitches.
For a true picture of proximity to small pitches, which provide more informal and social opportunities to play, but also to train for a club, this map needs to be set alongside that of full size pitches, as full size pitches tend to have the capability of being partitioned in some way (for example, using nets), to make maximum use of the space when matches are not played.
- 231 -
Figure 74: Locally Derived Drive-time Catchment Areas for small 5/7-a-side dedicated pitches
N.B. Map and key to be added by Borough of Poole / Bournemouth Borough Council. At the time of issue of this report, no map was made available to the consultants.
Source: Borough of Poole
- 232 -
AGPs with no community access
There is one pitches known to have no community access outside of their dedicated use for specific users. These are at the schools identified in Figure 75 below.
Figure 75: Artificial Grass Pitches, location and surface type with no community access
Number Predominant use (of Surface (football / Site name which Size type hockey / are dedicated small-sided floodlit) football) Bournemouth: sub-area 2
(Boscombe East, Boscombe West, East Cliff & Springbourne) Bournemouth Collegiate 1 Sand filled Half Hockey School
Ownership and management type
AGPs tend to be run by commercial interests, education establishments or trusts. A number of the AGPs remain in public ownership. This is important, as with a limited supply of AGPs in Bournemouth and Poole, an already limited choice for teams can be further constrained by pitches which are operated solely on a commercial basis where, although quality is often high, costs can be beyond the reach of many community teams and small clubs.
- 233 -
Figure 76: AGP ownership and management
Site name Ownership type Management
Bournemouth
School/College/University Talbot Heath School Other Independent (in house)
Bournemouth Collegiate School Other Trust
Pelhams Park Leisure Centre Local Authority Trust
Littledown Leisure Centre Local Authority Trust
Sir David English Local Authority Trust
Poole
Carter Community School Local Authority School/College/University (in house)
Bournemouth University Sports Higher Education School/College/University Centre Institutions (in house)
Ashdown Leisure Centre Local Authority Commercial Management
Canford School Sports Centre School/College/University Other (in house)
Canford Park Sports Ltd Commercial Commercial Management Astroturf
The Hamworthy Club Commercial Commercial Management
- 234 -
Quality and Accessibility
A key part of the assessment has been a though audit of AGPs which have community access. The audit is based on an on-site evaluation of the quality, quantity and accessibility of facilities, from which an overall score can be identified along with key issues relating to improvements needed. The report about the Audit which accompanies the strategy provides further detail about the process and content. However, in short, it has its basis in extant and emerging revised guidance on how to undertake playing pitch assessments. Figure 77 below identifies the scores from the audit of pitches, along with issues about quality or accessibility which may need attention identified by those undertaking the audit (officers from Bournemouth Borough Council, Borough of Poole and Active Dorset). A pitch with an overall score of less than 50 is considered to be ‘poor’, a pitch with a score of between 51 and 79 is considered to be ‘standard’ and a pitch with a score of 80 or more is considered to be in a ‘good’ condition. Maximum score available is 98.
Figure 77: Audit scores for community access full size AGPs
Overall score Key issues requiring attention (if Site location / pitch (for full size any) AGPs)
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Talbot Heath School Standard None
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Sir David English Leisure Standard None Centre
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
- 235 -
Ashdown Leisure Centre Standard None
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Canford Park Sports Ltd Good It is understood that the pitch’s quality is one of the best in the country (FIFA 2 star equivalent), although there are no supporting facilities (changing etc.) to service it.
Canford School Sports Standard None Centre
Canford School Sports Standard None Centre
Notes: Full size AGPs will have a quality score for the pitch. Pitches are rated as ‘poor’, ‘standard’ or ‘good in line with the Playing Pitch Strategy methodology.
Figure 78 below identifies the scores recorded by the audit of pitches and any other comments picked up from the process.
Figure 78: Audit scores for community access dedicated small size pitches
Key issues requiring attention (if Site location / pitch Overall score any)
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Pelhams Park Leisure Good None Centre
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Littledown Leisure Centre Very good None
- 236 -
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Bournemouth University Good None Sports Centre 1
Bournemouth University Good None Sports Centre 2
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
The Hamworthy Club Standard None
Notes: Full size AGPs will have a quality score for the pitch. Some smaller 5-a-side pitches will not as they were assessed as built facilities. Where small pitches have been assessed as a built facility, the ‘score’ is either ‘very poor’, ‘poor’, ‘adequate’, ‘good’ or ‘very good’.
Other key quality and accessibility issues identified by clubs, leagues, local authorities and NGBs are identified below:
Hockey Poole Hockey Club has identified: an overall poor or very poor condition of toilets, changing facilities and social facilities such as refreshment facilities; a need for improvement to the maintenance of pitch equipment such as the goals; a need to improve security to keep unauthorised people off of the pitch; and, a lack of room for the storage of equipment at Ashdown Leisure Centre. The club has lost a social / changing space since the conversion of the room near to the pitch to a gym. This compares to the club rating the pitch as an excellent standard. Bournemouth University Hockey Club as suggested that while the facilities at the Chapel Gate site outside of Bournemouth are good, its distance from the University is a barrier to growing the club’s membership.
Football When asked what three things they would change about the facility they use, AFC Bournemouth Ability Counts FC suggested, at Pelhams Park 5-a-side
- 237 -
pitches, that they would change the pitch sizes, there is a need to relay the surfaces and a need for better changing facilities (including lockers) and toilets. When asked the same question, Greenfields Youth FC highlighted need for a canteen facility, outdoor seating and fencing at the Sir David English Leisure Centre pitches. All leagues’ representatives who responded to the survey (Dorset Premier League, Dorset Girls’ Mini Soccer League and the Dorset Women’s League, Bournemouth Youth Football League and Bournemouth Hayward Football Leagues) said that they would be happy for their league to use AGPs for competitive play. Borough of Poole officers have raised concerns about the quality and condition of the Turlin Moor Recreation Ground multi-use games area / 3 x 5- a-side small redgra pitches. This is dealt with in the assessment on MUGAs.
Current Demand and Capacity
Understanding the demand for AGPs can be put together from a number of sources. Firstly, participation rates for hockey can be used as hockey is played wholly on AGPs. This can therefore form part of the picture of use. Sport England models can also be used to understand the overall demand for AGPs as a type of pitch, models which take into account all uses (i.e. hockey and informal football) during the peak periods (i.e. weekday evenings and weekends). These various sources of data are set out below.
Participation Rates
Participation rates are a good indicator of demand. These are available for hockey which can form part of the picture of use of AGPs. Participation rates for football are acknowledged below but they do not differentiate between participation for a club, training, matches or informal use nor whether that participation is on grass pitches or AGPs.
The Sport England Market Segmentation Tool can be used to identify the number of people currently playing hockey, as well as providing a picture of the number
- 238 -
of people who do not currently play but would like to. Figures 79 and 80 show that, spatially, participation rates are fairly consistent across both Bournemouth and Poole. Numbers suggest that 446 residents in Bournemouth play hockey and 368 residents of Poole play.
Figure 79: People who play hockey in Bournemouth
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
- 239 -
Figure 80: People who play hockey in Poole
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
The segments of population types which play hockey the most are shown in Figure 81.
- 240 -
Figure81: Segments of population which play the most hockey (number and % of resident hockey players playing the sport)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 75 16.8 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Chloe Fitness class friends: Young image-conscious 64 14.3 females keeping fit and trim
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 58 13 buying a house and settling down with partner
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying football, 49 11 pints and pool
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 42 9.4 themselves
Leanne Supportive Singles: Young busy mums and their 35 7.8 supportive college mates
Helena Career-Focussed Females: Single professional 30 6.7 women, enjoying life in the fast lane
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent 68 18.5 graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ attitude
Chloe Fitness class friends: Young image-conscious 58 15.8 females keeping fit and trim
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, 52 14.1 buying a house and settling down with partner
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older children and more time for 45 12.2 themselves
Helena Career-Focussed Females: Single professional 23 6.3
- 241 -
Poole
Segment Summary Population % women, enjoying life in the fast lane
Alison Stay at Home Mums: Mums with a comfortable, 18 4.9 but busy, lifestyle
Jackie Middle England Mums: Mums juggling work, family 18 4.9 and finance Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
Number of clubs and teams
The number of clubs and teams using AGPs is easiest to estimate for hockey, where clubs only use AGPs for training and matches. It is more difficult to estimate the amount of play by football clubs and teams which may or may not use AGPs for training and may or may not choose to use AGPs on a regular basis. Therefore, part of the picture of demand can be put together using hockey use, particularly for sand and water filled AGPs (rather than 3G rubber crumb more often used for football).
Within the boundaries of the Boroughs of Bournemouth and Poole, hockey is only played at the Ashdown Leisure Centre in Poole by Poole Hockey Club. As explained above, Bournemouth Hockey Club and Bournemouth University Hockey Club play outside the Borough at Chapel Gate, a facility which lies within the boundary of Christchurch Borough Council and is therefore not audited or assessed as part of this assessment. However, while the pitches at Chapel Gate are not assessed, the use of them is considered given their contribution to supply for the Bournemouth and Poole conurbation (and in particular Bournemouth town). Figure 82 below highlights the clubs and their teams which play (including those of Bournemouth Hockey club.
- 242 -
Figure 82: Hockey clubs and teams and where they play
Club Teams Pitch / Site
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
3 men’s teams
1 ladies’ team Poole Hockey Club Ashdown Leisure Centre Juniors train with occasional matches
Outside Bournemouth and Poole
7 men’s teams
5 ladies’
Bournemouth Hockey Club teams Chapel Gate, Christchurch
5 girls teams
5 boys teams
Bournemouth University 2 mens Chapel Gate, Christchurch Hockey Club 2 womens
Comparing supply and demand
The Sport England Facilities Planning Model provides estimations of supply compared to demand and benchmarks them against neighbouring local authority areas and wider geographies. Figure 83 reproduces the supply – demand table from the FPM. However, while both Bournemouth and Poole show a deficit in the
- 243 -
provision of pitches against demand, the model has discounted use of dedicated smaller pitches at venues such as Littledown, Sir David English and Pelhams Park Leisure Centres. Therefore figures need to be used with that caveat in mind.
The FPM also makes calculations for the demand that is satisfied within the Borough boundaries and the degree to which people have to go outside of the Borough to access an AGP. Figure 84 reproduces these figures for Bournemouth and Poole. They suggest that Bournemouth exports around 94% of its residents’ demand for use of AGPs, whilst Poole’s figure is much lower at an export level of 55%. These figures reflect the supply of AGPs available to the population and the ease of access to AGPs in neighbouring local authority areas. Pitches at Chapel Gate in Christchurch are likely to play a significant role in absorbing demand from Bournemouth. Again, figures should be used with caution as they only record use of full size AGPs which can be temporarily used as smaller itches and does not take into account dedicated or permanently divided AGPs used predominantly for 5 or 7-a-side informal play.
- 244 -
Figure 83: Supply – Demand - Balance (full size community access AGPs)
SOUTH WEST Table 3 - Supply/Demand Balance Bournemouth UA Poole UA Christchurch East Dorset Purbeck Dorset County ENGLAND REGION Supply - Pitch provision (pitches) scaled to take account of hours available for community use 0.3 2.5 2.0 1.7 1.8 16.2 177.7 1487.6 Demand - Pitch provision (pitches) 6.4 4.3 1.2 2.1 1.2 10.4 158.7 1691.7 Supply / Demand balance - Variation in pitches of provision available compared to the minimum required -6.17 -1.87 0.83 -0.35 0.58 5.77 19 -204.11 Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model, 2013
Figure 84: Satisfied demand (full size community access AGPs)
Table 4 - Satisfied Demand Bournemouth UA Poole UA
Total number of visits which are met 2212 2151 % of total demand satisfied 46.4 67 % of demand satisfied who travelled by car 98.3 94.7 % of demand satisfied who travelled by foot 0.6 4.4 % of demand satisfied who travelled by public transport 1.2 0.9 Demand Retained 128 953 Demand Retained -as a % of Satisfied Demand 5.8 44.3 Demand Exported 2084 1199 Demand Exported -as a % of Satisfied Demand 94.2 55.7 Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model, 2013
- 245 -
Carrying capacity and balance of provision
The carrying capacity of the AGP pitches has been brought together from a number of sources. For some pitches it has not been possible to establish the amount of use of the AGPs. However, information on AGPs is supplemented by analysis produced through the Facilities Planning Model (which records visits per week in the peak period) and so it is considered that there is sufficient information from which capacity levels can be estimated.
Figure 85: Capacity of AGPs
Operation over, under or Site name Additional comments at capacity at peak periods
Bournemouth: sub-area 1
(Talbot & Branksome Woods, Central, Westbourne & West Cliff)
Talbot Heath At capacity School
Poole: sub-area 4
(Oakdale, Canford Heath East, Canford Heath West)
Ashdown At capacity The pitch runs at approximately 75 – 80% total Leisure Centre capacity (i.e. at ‘comfortable’ levels), which allows some flexibility for casual bookings.
Poole: sub-area 5
(Creekmoor, Broadstone, Merley & Bearwood)
Canford Park At capacity Sports Ltd
Canford School At capacity Sports Centre 1
Canford School At capacity Sports Centre 2
- 246 -
The following table sets out demand and capacity comments on the dedicated small sided game pitches in Bournemouth and Poole.
Figure 86: Small dedicated pitch levels of capacity and quality issues
Operation Site location over, under or Additional Comments / pitch at capacity at peak periods
Bournemouth: sub-area 3
(Kinson North, Kinson South, Redhill & Northbourne)
Pelhams Park Slightly under Management of the centre have suggested that the Leisure Centre capacity pitches are slightly under-utilised although demand is there. Reviewing soccer schools across the network of facilities might bring these pitches more into play and open some capacity at other venues.
A club which responded to the survey stated that the quality of the surface is poor.
Bournemouth: sub-area 6
(West Southbourne, East Southbourne & Tuckton, Littledown & Iford)
Littledown At capacity Management of the centre have suggested that most Leisure Centre bookings are evening based with some at the weekends. Block booking is common with informal bookings fitting in around these.
Bournemouth: sub-area 5
(Throop & Muscliff, Strouden Park)
Sir David At capacity Management of the centre have suggested that most English Leisure bookings are evening based with some at the Centre weekends. Block booking is common with informal bookings fitting in around these. The pitches are used by schools during the day.
A club which uses the pitches has suggested that
- 247 -
Operation Site location over, under or Additional Comments / pitch at capacity at peak periods better maintenance is needed, with better goal nets and reduction of litter. Better changing facilities are needed and 5v5 and 7v7 pitches should be marked out for junior and youth football.
Poole: sub-area 1
(Hamworthy East, Hamworthy West, Poole Town)
Carter At capacity From the audit undertaken for pitches, the AGP has Community been identified as being of ‘good’ quality. The pitch School has many block bookings from organisations and clubs and it also hosts a five-a-side league. Individuals cannot book the pitch as those using the pitch need a copy of their public liability insurance to play.
Poole: sub-area 3
(Canford Cliffs, Branksome East, Branksome West, Alderney)
Bournemouth Slightly under Pitches are not used at full capacity, although the University capacity size of the pitches do not lend themselves to club Sports Centre practice or training. Spare time is still available during the day mon-fri and predominantly Saturday daytime. Both students and community use the pitches both term time and non-term time. Community use is usually evenings after 6pm.
A club which uses the pitches has suggested a need for bigger / full size pitches in the area.
While there is an area at the Turlin Moor Recreation Ground which can accommodate 3 small sided games of football, the surface is understood to be in
- 248 -
poor repair, is redgra rather than an AGP and given its potential multi-use is not considered to be a dedicated area for football. Its role falls somewhere between a multi-use games area (MUGA) and AGP for football. As a result it is considered more fully in the MUGA assessment than as part of the AGP pitches assessment.
Club membership
Club membership numbers are a good indicator of change in demand in recent years and in the near future. All clubs (Poole Hockey Club, Bournemouth University and Bournemouth Hockey Club) suggested in their survey return that they would like to increase their membership. In the last two years, membership at Bournemouth University Hockey Club has grown (currently 60 adults) and there is also a waiting list to join. At Bournemouth Hockey Club junior membership has grown (currently at 130 members) while adult membership has stayed the same (currently at 140 members) and at Poole Hockey Club, junior membership has stayed the same (with 53 members) and adult membership has grown (to 57 members). This suggests healthy levels of participation and demand.
Unmet demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘unmet demand’ as follows:
“Current unmet demand could be in the form of a team that has currently got access to a pitch for its matches but nowhere to train or vice versa. It could also be from an educational establishment that is currently using an indoor facility because of the lack of access to outdoor pitch provision. Along with a lack of pitches of a particular type being available to the community unmet demand may be due to the poor quality and therefore limited capacity of pitches in the area and/or a lack of provision and ancillary facilities which meet a certain standard of play/league requirement. League secretaries may be aware of some unmet demand as they may have refused applications from teams wishing to enter their competitions due to a lack of pitch provision which in turn is hindering the growth of the league. As it is known to exists any unmet demand recorded should be easily quantifiable e.g. a training session for one team on a weekday evening.”
- 249 -
(Paragraph B36, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Of the clubs, only Bournemouth University has suggested that the quantity of facilities (which could include availability of pitches) limits their capacity to grow. They are also the only club which stated that they have a waiting list to join. This suggests that there is unmet demand generated by the University club. Bournemouth Hockey Club suggested that accessibility to facilities limits their capacity to grow suggesting that they would like additional pitch time at the current facility at Chapel Gate.
While England Hockey has not identified any known unmet demand for hockey, it has suggested that an additional pitch outside Bournemouth at Chapel Gate might be needed during the lifetime of the strategy to satisfy need from Bournemouth as well as Christchurch Borough if existing clubs continue to use the facility and membership grows.
A mapping exercise undertaken by the FA in 2012 identified a need for 104 ‘training slots’ to accommodate existing affiliated teams in Poole, although the pitch at Carter School is largely commercial as is the one at Canford Park Sports, meaning that many community clubs will not be able to afford the cost of hiring the pitch. Realistically, therefore, demand is likely to be a little higher than the FA estimates. The figure is for 110 training slots in Bournemouth, potentially rising to 130 if the Sir David English Leisure Centre moves to a completely commercial model. The calculations suggest that one full size 3G AGP equates to providing 56 training slots. For football, therefore, this would indicate a need for around 4 - 5 AGPs (2/3 in Bournemouth and 2 in Poole).
Figure 87 is reproduced from the FPM and illustrates the number of pitches which would be needed to meet existing demand currently unmet in Bournemouth and Poole (for both hockey and football). While there are caveats about the limitations of the data (for example, the figures do not take into account pitches used for small sided / 5-a-side permanent play), the figures suggest an unmet demand of almost 3.5 full size AGPs in Bournemouth and almost 1.5 in Poole, representing half of all demand for AGPs in Bournemouth and a third in Poole.
- 250 -
Although taking into account the supply of the small dedicated 5-a-side pitches might suggest less of a need for additional pitches, indications of use from operators of those pitches suggests that there may be additional need generated from unmet demand for small pitches, which would make the figures produced by the FPM more level with actual need at the current time. On club which uses the AGPs at Pelhams Park suggested that there is a need for a full size AGP, which can be used more flexibly than the small 5-a-side enclosed pitches there at the current time. The need for additional larger AGPs has also been raised by other clubs through the survey responses.
Figure 87: Unmet Demand (full size community access AGPs)
Table 5 - Unmet Demand Bournemouth UA Poole UA
Total number of visits in the peak, not currently being met 2553 1059 Unmet demand as a % of total demand 53.6 33 Equivalent in pitches 3.45 1.43 % of Unmet Demand due to ; Lack of Capacity - 86.4 91.2 Outside Catchment - 13.6 8.8 Outside Catchment; 13.6 8.8 % Unmet demand who do not have access to a car 9.4 4.6 % of Unmet demand who have access to a car 4.2 4.2 Lack of Capacity; 86.4 91.2 % Unmet demand who do not have access to a car 12.2 15.3 % of Unmet demand who have access to a car 74.1 76.0 Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model, 2013
When compared to the location, spread and catchment of facilities, figures also suggest that for those without access to a car and who would like to access an AGP, there are large areas of Bournemouth and Poole without good access to an AGP.
Aggregated unmet demand from FPM model (2013).
The Facilities Planning Model identifies levels of aggregated unmet demand for AGPs (for their use for both hockey and football). Mapping shows figures in each grid square which represent the aggregated unmet demand in that square and all surrounding squares, and are expressed in pitches equivalent. The level of
- 251 -
aggregated unmet demand and the figures indicate the total demand from that grid square and it’s CATCHMENT (the figures in each grid square should not be added together as this would result in duplication), and any hotspots can be identified. Figure 88 suggests that there are significant levels of aggregated unmet demand across Bournemouth and Poole with particular hotspots across central parts of Bournemouth.
- 252 -
Figure 88: Aggregated unmet demand for full size AGPs 2013
Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model mapping, 2013
- 253 -
Displaced demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘displaced demand’ as follows:
“Displaced demand generally relates to play by teams or other users of playing pitches from within the study area (i.e. from residents of the study area) which takes place outside the area. It is important to know whether this displaced demand is due to issues with the provision of pitches and ancillary facilities in the study area, just reflective of how the sports are played (e.g. at a central venue for the wider area) or due to the most convenient site for the respective users just falling outside of the LA/study area. It is therefore important to establish: • What displaced demand exists and why including the amount and type of demand (e.g. a senior match on a natural grass pitch, a junior training session on an AGP); • Whether those generating the displaced demand would prefer to play within the study area and where.” (Paragraph B34, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
While there is a significant amount of displaced demand from Bournemouth to Christchurch Borough for hockey, we understand that hockey clubs and England Hockey are reasonably content with Chapel Gate being the ‘home’ of Bournemouth hockey, confirmed by the recent investment being made into the provision of a new surface on one of the pitches and intention in the coming years to refurbish the other pitch. However, Bournemouth University have suggested that playing at distance away from the University limits their capacity to grow the club. Access to an AGP closer to the University would probably make it easier for students to access hockey (as well as football). Any relocation of team play away from Chapel Gate will need to take into account the potential impact upon levels of use at the facility.
The FPM suggests that 94.2% of demand for AGP use (across both football and hockey) is exported to venues outside of Bournemouth Borough (see Figure 89 below). Some of this will probably go to Poole, although figures also suggest that around 89% of visits to AGPs in Christchurch are imported (see Figure 90
- 254 -
below), a high proportion of which seem likely to come from Bournemouth to use the Chapel Gate facility. While it must be remembered that calculations do not take into account the supply of small / 5-a-side pitches in Bournemouth, the import / export figures are likely to remain significant if these are considered.
- 255 -
Figure 89: AGP Satisfied Demand
Table 4 - Satisfied Demand Bournemouth UA Poole UA Christchurch East Dorset
Total number of visits which are met 2212 2151 416 1140 % of total demand satisfied 46.4 67 48 74.8 % of demand satisfied who travelled by car 98.3 94.7 99.2 97.1 % of demand satisfied who travelled by foot 0.6 4.4 0 2 % of demand satisfied who travelled by public transport 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 Demand Retained 128 953 161 568 Demand Retained -as a % of Satisfied Demand 5.8 44.3 38.7 49.8 Demand Exported 2084 1199 255 572 Demand Exported -as a % of Satisfied Demand 94.2 55.7 61.3 50.2 Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model, 2013
Figure 90: AGP Used Capacity
Table 6 - Used Capacity Bournemouth UA Poole UA Christchurch East Dorset
Total number of visits used of current capacity 200 1830 1480 1268 % of overall capacity of pitches used 100 100 100 100 % of visits made to pitches by walkers 1.5 5.7 0.1 1.8 % of visits made to pitches by road 98.5 94.3 99.9 98.2 Visits Imported; Number of visits imported 72 877 1319 700 As a % of used capacity 35.8 47.9 89.1 55.2 Visits Retained: Number of Visits retained 128 953 161 568 As a % of used capacity 64.2 52.1 10.9 44.8 Source: Sport England Facilities Planning Model, 2013
- 256 -
Latent Demand
The emerging new Playing Pitch Strategy guidance defines ‘latent demand’ as follows:
“Whereas unmet demand is known to exist latent demand is demand that evidence suggests may be generated from the current population should they have access to more or better provision. This could include feedback from a sports club who may feel that they could set up and run an additional team if they had access to better provision. Details of the potential amount and type of any latent demand in the study area should be sought.” (Paragraph B37, Draft Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance, 2013, Sport England)
Market segmentation data, used above to identify overall participation in hockey also provides an estimate of latent demand – i.e. those people who would like to play the sport who do not do so at the moment. The data does not set out reasons why these people are not accessing the sport but reasons can vary and can include (amongst others) lack of transport to get to a venue, cost of playing, or availability of pitch time or personal time to play.
It suggests that 277 people in Bournemouth would like to play hockey but cannot currently do so, while the figure in Poole is 217. Figure91 shows the types of people who would like to play and the proportion of the total that they represent.
- 257 -
Figure 91: Segments of population which would like to play hockey (number and % above 5% of resident population)
Bournemouth
Segment Summary Population %
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying 40 14.4 football, pints and pool
Leanne Supportive Singles: Young busy mums and 38 13.7 their supportive college mates
Chloe Fitness class friends: Young image- 29 10.5 conscious females keeping fit and trim
Helena Career-Focussed Females: Single professional women, enjoying life in the fast 26 9.4 lane
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a house and settling 20 7.2 down with partner
Jackie Middle England Mums: Mums juggling work, 17 6.1 family and finance
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ 15 5.4 attitude
Elaine Empty Nest Career Ladies: Mid-life
professionals who have more time for 15 5.4 themselves since their children left home
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older 14 5.1 children and more time for themselves Alison Stay at Home Mums: Mums with a 14 5.1 comfortable, but busy, lifestyle
- 258 -
Poole
Segment Summary Population %
Chloe Fitness class friends: Young image- 27 12.4 conscious females keeping fit and trim
Helena Career-Focussed Females: Single professional women, enjoying life in the fast 20 9.2 lane
Jackie Middle England Mums: Mums juggling work, 19 8.8 family and finance
Tim Settling Down Males: Sporty male professionals, buying a house and settling 18 8.3 down with partner
Alison Stay at Home Mums: Mums with a 16 7.4 comfortable, but busy, lifestyle
Philip Comfortable Mid-Life Males: Mid-life professional, sporty males with older 15 6.9 children and more time for themselves
Leanne Supportive Singles: Young busy mums and 15 6.9 their supportive college mates
Ben Competitive Male Urbanites: Male, recent graduates, with a ‘work-hard, play-hard’ 14 6.5 attitude
Jamie Sports Team Lads: Young blokes enjoying 13 6 football, pints and pool
Elaine Empty Nest Career Ladies: Mid-life professionals who have more time for 13 6 themselves since their children left home
Ralph & Comfortable Retired Couples: Phyllis Retired couples, enjoying active and 11 5.1 comfortable lifestyles
- 259 -
Source: Sport England Market Segmentation Tool, 2013
Applying 23 players making up a squad based team (11 on the field of play + 7 substitutes + 5 fringe), the figures would equate to around 12 teams generated in Bournemouth and 9 in Poole. However, it is unlikely that this full number of people who would like to play but cannot currently do so will actually be able to play. A figure of 20% is a reasonable figure to work with to seek to establish a more accurate estimate of people starting to play, giving 2.4 additional teams in Bournemouth and 1.9 in Poole.
Nature and extent of play at site with unsecured community use
There are no AGPs with community access with unsecured use.
Sports Calculator estimates for AGPs
Sport England’s Sports Facility Calculator can provide a snapshot of capacity required for AGPs for a given population. The calculator only provides part of the picture of demand for an area, taking into account only the physical requirements of a given population within the area in question (albeit in alignment with the area’s population age profile) and not taking into account catchments, spatial distribution, participation rates and other factors which influence demand. For AGPs, the calculator suggests the following provision of full size AGPs is required for the resident population of the towns in 2011.
Figure 92: Sports Facility Calculator Estimates for number of AGPs required for resident population in Bournemouth and Poole 2011
Population 2011 Pitches VPWPP (visits equivalent (full per week in the size) peak period)
Bournemouth 183,460 6.3 4,663
Poole 148,080 4.2 3,139 Source: Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator, 2013
- 260 -
Facility and pitch priorities, planned improvements and aspirations
National Sports Governing Bodies
The following issues and priorities have been highlighted by the Football Association in relation to AGP provision:
The Slades Farm site in Bournemouth is a priority for provision of an AGP. The provision of an AGP in Hamworthy (at the County Ground where Hamworthy United FC play) is a priority in Poole. This would see replacement of the existing grass pitch with an AGP. Feasibility work is currently underway at the site.
The following issues and priorities have been highlighted by England Hockey in relation to AGP provision:
There is a potential need for an additional AGP at the Chapel Gate site during the lifetime of the strategy (to 2026).
Schools, Colleges and Academies
Of the schools, colleges and Academies which responded to consultation and from discussion with the FA and EHB, the following have aspirations for provision of AGPs:
The Slades Farm proposals for new and improved sports facilities on the Winton Arts and Media College site includes a new AGP designed to accommodate football and rugby to which the University will have some access. This is a commitment by all partners involved in provision. We understand that the following school sites have either been considered as potential locations for AGPs in the past or the schools themselves have expressed an interest in having an AGP (these are simply aspirations and are understood not to be fully formed plans or commitments): Harewood / Avonbourne College (Bournemouth); St Peter’s Catholic School (Bournemouth); Branksome Heath Middle School (Poole); Poole High School
- 261 -
(Poole); Broadstone Middle School (resurfacing existing tennis and netball courts). Learoyd Road, Rossmore Leisure Centre / St Aldhelms Academy and Turlin Moor Recreation Ground (both in Poole) have all been considered in the past for potential sites to have a new AGP.
Identifying potential demand from international students
Analysis so far in this assessment has been based on the resident populations of Bournemouth and Poole. Data does not normally take into account the impact of non-residents on sports provision. However, the impact that international students potentially have on provision and understanding their needs is important, particularly in Bournemouth where the majority of international colleges are located.
International students18 account for some estimated 45,000 - 50,000 additional people19 in Bournemouth and Poole over the period of a year with the peak time of foreign student attendance at international language colleges usually being over the summer months when the proportion of this total figure is likely to be substantial. There is little data to quantify how many students are present at the peak time over the summer, but estimates put figures at up to 9,000, while the lowest number off-peak in November and December is likely to be around 4,800 – 5,00020.
18 International students do not include students who attend Bournemouth University, although some foreign language schools and colleges utilise University facilities during the summer. University students are included in population projections (as they tend to stay for more than one year) and therefore estimations of demand from the resident population. 19 In 2013, it is understood that the number of accredited language schools is 24 with an estimated number of students across the last year being between 45,000 and 50,000. In 2009, the number of students was estimated to be 42,300 from 27 language schools in Bournemouth. There are very few language schools in Poole by comparison. These figures exclude the “mushroom schools” i.e. those Europe-based operators who bring over mainly young people, and set up "classes" in various places such as church halls etc. For these groups there are no recorded figures. 20 Figures estimated through discussion with the Chair of the International Education Forum and are based upon 24 colleges having an average of 350 students enrolled at peak. Some colleges have as many as 900 – 1,000, while some smaller colleges have fewer than 150.
- 262 -
More work has been done to quantify the economic benefit of international students with English UK suggesting a value of almost £190m comes from 195,254 student weeks equivalent in 201121.
Discussion with international college representatives and leisure centre managers suggests that because of the transient nature of international students and the short time the majority spend in Bournemouth and Poole, much of their sporting activity is based around playing sports informally rather than in varsity style or club based competitive sport. International colleges do not tend to have their own facilities (and have little equipment) and are reliant mainly on using existing provision at leisure centres, club owned facilities, schools and the University for any tournament or team-based play. Parks are also used for some football matches when not being used formally by local clubs or teams. Organisation of such events is largely down to staff at colleges. Informal play is likely to be popular therefore, particularly over the summer months, in parks and open access facilities such as MUGAs and tennis courts. Sports which seem to be the most popular are handball, volleyball, football and basketball. We understand that there would probably be appetite from international colleges to provide their own facilities (potentially in partnership with others) to meet demand.
Alongside informal play and use of existing bookable space, discussion with leisure centre managers has identified that Stokewood Leisure Centre (BHLive) in Bournemouth is probably the most used leisure centre by international students. In August 2013, of the 1,400 members of the centre, 70 (5%) were international students. At other BHLive leisure centres, around 2% of their members were international students, equating to around an additional 170 students (equating therefore to around 240 student members in total). If membership is at this level across Bournemouth leisure centres for each month in the peak period of June to September, falls across the rest of the year and some allowance is made for students who stay for longer than one month, members in a 12 month period could be between 2,000 and 2,800 student members in a 12 month period. The most popular activities have been identified
21 See http://www.englishuk.com/uploads/assets/english_uk/Estimate_of_the_value_of_ELT_to_the_UKs_Towns.pdf
- 263 -
as being (in order) the gym, swimming and classes. Most students join and pay student discounted prices on a month by month basis. A key issue identified by leisure centre management is that many international students do not know where or how to access leisure centre facilities and therefore better promotion of facilities would probably increase use.
Discussion with the management at The Junction Leisure Centre in Poole has identified approximately 200 international students becoming members of the facility in a 12 month period with the most popular activity being the gym and June to August inclusive seeing the greatest demand from international students. The Junction indicated that there is capacity to accommodate more students at its facility. Everyone Active, which operates the Council’s leisure centres in Poole do not have figures relating to international students.
Estimating demand
Using the estimated figures for the number of students at the peak and trough of the year, the Sport England sports calculator can be used to estimate the amount of artificial grass pitch space required for the population. Figure 93 identifies a range of requirements arising from population of international students at any one time. Using the total number of students over the whole year to understand demand would substantially over-count needs, as facilities need to cater only for the total number of students in the peak period.
The resultant figures for requirements for international students assume that facilities are available to the students during the whole week (over 80 hours of use). If facilities were brought forward on a shared basis, the requirements in terms of space would increase.
- 264 -
Figure 93: Estimated range of demand arising from international students at any one time
Estimated requirement generated by population for provision Range of estimated international students numbers at of artificial grass pitches~ any one time*
pitches vpwpp
4,000 0.39 286 Lower end of numbers 5,000 0.48 357
8,000 0.77 572 Upper end of numbers 9,000 0.87 643
10,000 0.97 714 Growth potential numbers 11,000 1.06 786
Notes: ^ source: Sports Facility Calculator, Sport England, October 2013. The estimates assume a 50%/50% split of male and female students and that the majority of students will be between 16 and 24 years old. Although the calculations are based on use in the peak period, the process also assumes that the additional facilities are open for community use throughout the whole week (over 80 hours per week), including both peak and off peak periods. Planning to meet the demands of the new population using facilities which are not open for the whole week will need to make allowance for the reduced hours. For example, if a new development generated the need for a 4 court sports hall, which it is planned to be met by a dual use facility on a school site, community use may only be in after school hours, say 30 hours per week. This would obviously be significantly short of the 40 hours in the peak period, never mind the 80 hours of total community access needed. Figures assume no increase in participation rates. ~ artificial grass pitches are full size pitches which can accommodate an 11-a-side football match * based on estimated potential minimum and maximum number of students at lowest and highest months of the year. The range also allows for additional potential demand in the future should numbers increase over the strategy period.
- 265 -
The figures suggest that, for artificial grass pitches, the requirement is for around 0.87 of a full size pitch, although planning for provision of one AGP would build in sufficient headroom for demand should peak time see around 11,000 students in the future.
The majority of demand is most likely to arise in Bournemouth, particularly near to the larger colleges, but there could be some impact on facility provision and needs in eastern parts of the Borough of Poole. Facility provision should be considered within a one mile or 20 minute walk catchment of the largest 5 colleges: which are ETC International College, Kings, Anglo Continental, Southbourne School of English and Kaplan International College. Provision of facilities, if additional to existing capacity, are therefore most likely to come forward in Bournemouth Borough.
For all proposed additional capacity, international colleges should discuss opportunities to bring forward facilities with the relevant Borough Council and schools / colleges / Academies to utilise existing opportunities to bring forward facilities and ensure that proposals tie in with the Sports Strategy.
Opportunities for international students to use existing facilities should be better signposted. For example, Borough Councils and international colleges could work more closely to ensure that students know how and where to access facilities. SPOGO (https://spogo.co.uk/) or social media could be better utilised to raise awareness of facilities.
In order to get an accurate picture of demand, monitoring should be introduced with the international colleges and Borough Councils working together to understand the levels of use of facilities and latent demand generated by students. This would involve getting a sample of responses from students when they arrive and again when they leave over a 1 month period initially and combining this with annual collation of data on the number of students coming to Bournemouth and Poole, where they stay and the duration of their stay.
266
Delivering existing plans and programmes
The Literature and Strategic Review of plans and programmes currently operational in Bournemouth and Poole has identified the following projects which will need to be considered alongside recent evidence gathered on pitch provision to help determine the strategic approach to fill gaps in provision in the period to 2026.
- 267 -
Figure 94: Projects which relate to future strategic provision of AGPs and small 5/7-a-side pitches in Bournemouth and Poole
Progress Does it Project / proposal Source Document Not Underway / remain a Complete started ongoing priority? * Identified priorities (programmed year of improvement and H/M/L priority) relevant to Sports Strategy:
Develop 250m cycle track (2011 - H); repair and improve skate park (2012-14 - M); improve school 250m cycle pitch drainage (2013 - H); refurbish tennis / Slades Farm track Yes netball courts at Glenmoor School (2014 - H); Masterplan 2012-2021 completed fitness trail in school or park (2014 – M); full size 2011 artificial turf pitch for rugby / football (2016 – M); new sports hall (2020 - M); new girls’ changing rooms (2015 - H); outdoor climbing wall (2014 – M); and, 1km cycling / training circuit (2015 - M).
Development of two artificial grass pitches (1 x Poole Infrastructure full size at EA: Ashdown and 1 x ¾ size at Carter Programme, 2011 School)
Support improvements to increase distribution and Poole Leisure Strategy, Yes variety of AGPs 2011-2015
There is a need to develop a ‘5-a-side’ or ‘multi Bournemouth and Yes
- 268 -
Progress Does it Project / proposal Source Document Not Underway / remain a Complete started ongoing priority? * court’ STP in west Poole. Poole Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan, 2008
Bournemouth and There is a need to increase the variety of STP Poole Playing Pitch surfaces (e.g., sand filled, 3G construction) Yes Strategy and Action throughout the area. Plan, 2008
- 269 -
Future Demand
Team Generation Rates and number of pitches equivalent
To get an idea about the future number of teams that might be formed from an increasing population during the strategy period to 2026 (and therefore future demand for pitches), population projections can be applied to age groups used for competitive play. Team generation rates are calculated simply by dividing the current population within an age group for a sport by the number of teams in the area within that age group at the current time, with the ratio then applied to projected population for that age group.
The following table sets out the projected number of hockey teams for Bournemouth and Poole and translates them to the number of pitches that the number of teams may need (which could be provided either from existing stock or from additional pitches if needed). The team generation rate for football has been undertaken earlier in the report. Together, both sets of figures can provide an indication of demand for AGPs, although the demand for hockey will be wholly for AGPs, whereas the demand for football will be largely be for grass pitches for teams, with some need of those teams translating across to AGPs for training.
The figures need to be used with some caution. Figures are generated by sub- area and on the basis of where home teams play. Therefore, to put the sub area derived figures in context, figures are presented for Bournemouth and for Poole as a whole to ensure balance and more accurate reflection of the make-up of teams ‘on the ground’.
The team generation rates for Bournemouth have been generated using information on clubs formed largely from the population of Bournemouth, but who play at the Chapel Gate facility in Christchurch Borough, to give an indication of the potential demand in the future for hockey from residents in Bournemouth. Both Bournemouth University and Bournemouth Hockey Club have teams with the University having 2 men and 2 women teams and Bournemouth Hockey Club having 7 mens, 5 womens, 5 boys' and 5 girls'
- 270 -
teams, all of which play matches at Chapel Gate. The demand generated from additional teams generated by population in Bournemouth may continue to be catered for outside of Bournemouth at Chapel Gate if the focus of the strategy is on that facility to accommodate the majority of Bournemouth's needs and the eastern part of the south east Dorset conurbation.
Full Team Generation Rate calculations are appended as a separate file to this report for information, should interrogation of the data be required.
- 271 -
Figure 95: Impact of Population increase in Bournemouth on the numbers of teams (which play at Chapel Gate in Christchurch)
Number of Current Future Potential Current teams in population population in Population Change in Team Age Groups age group in age group age group Change in Team Generation within the within the within the Age Group Numbers in Rate area area area Age Group
Senior Men (16-55yrs) 9 55,260 52,800 6,140 -2,460 -0.4
Senior Women (16-55yrs) 7 51,770 48,710 7,396 -3,060 -0.4
Junior Boys (11-15yrs) 5 4,340 4,940 868 600 0.7
Junior Girls (11-15yrs) 5 4,080 5,050 816 970 1.2
Bournemouth Totals 26 115,450 111,500 - -3,950 1.1
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding. No clubs play in Bournemouth Borough. The table above reflects clubs which play at Chapel Gate in Christchurch which is close the local authority boundary, and which will be likely to draw the majority of their team players from within Bournemouth Borough.
- 272 -
Figure 96: Impact of Population increase in Poole on the numbers of teams
Current Number of Future Potential population teams in population in Population Change in in age Current Sport and Age Groups age group age group Change in Team group TGR within the within the Age Group Numbers in within the area area Age Group area
Senior Men (16-55yrs) 3 37,660 34,590 12,553 -3,070 -0.2
Senior Women (16-55yrs) 1 37,230 33,760 37,230 -3,470 -0.1
Junior Boys (11-15yrs) 0 4,050 4,630 0 580 0
Junior Girls (11-15yrs) 0 4,000 4,580 0 580 0
Poole Totals 4 82,940 77,560 - -5,380 -0.3
Notes: figures may not sum due to rounding.
- 273 -
Additional (Increase in) Participation
Most National Sports Governing Bodies have targets to increase participation in the period from 2013 to 2017 (their Sport England funding period). These tie investment in facilities and sports development to increases in the number of people playing their sport at least once a month for 30 minutes or more.
For hockey, there is a target set nationally for around a 16% increase on the base number of people playing between 2013 and 2017. In order to get an appreciation of the potential increase over the strategy period from the existing population, the rate is applied to the number of players currently playing identified in the market segmentation data set out earlier in this section. The figures will be limited to those in the 16+ age group as the data does not count under 16 players.
The resulting additional potential players for informal and competitive play arising from a 16% increase in participation are shown in Figure 97.
Figure 97: Potential additional numbers playing as a result of participation increases
Number of people Additional number of playing (16+) and people playing across all sub-areas in applying 16% increase 2013 in participation
Bournemouth 446 71
Poole 368 59
Notes: assumes even growth between age groups
Applying the number of players in a typical team (11) and adding substitutes (7) and fringe players (perhaps 5) to the number of people identified above equates to an additional potential 3 senior teams could be formed from increased participation in Bournemouth and 2.5 in Poole. There are no figures available to
- 274 -
estimate the impact of a 16% increase in participation on junior involvement, although any increase in junior hockey may occur in schools as well as in a club environment and it is likely that additional junior play at clubs will be accommodated within pitch provision made for senior teams given the amount of use an AGP can support.
On the basis of a hockey team requiring 0.5 of an AGP for a match and an AGP being able to accommodate 4 matches on a match day (typically a Saturday) and each team having up to 2 hours’ training per week, this increase in participation could result in a need for an additional hockey AGP in Bournemouth and one in Poole.
For football, figures carried forward from the football assessment above suggest that additional numbers of players arising from an increase in participation to achieve the FA target of 1% could equate to 5.4 teams in Bournemouth and 3.8 in Poole, with informal play likely to make up 4.4 and 2.8 of those teams in Bournemouth and Poole respectively. However, demand for pitches is likely to fall on AGPs for small sided games, equating to a demand from around 11 x 7-a- side teams in Bournemouth and 7 x 7-a-side teams in Poole. An AGP can typically host three small sided games in any given hour. In Bournemouth, 6.5 small sided pitch hours would be needed to accommodate this demand. In Poole, the figure would be 3.5 small sided pitch hours. Both could be easily accommodated on a single full size AGP, given that in a peak period for this type of informal play (or example weekday evenings) on a full size AGP, 20 hours are available on a single full size pitch, equalling 60 hours of small sided pitch time.
Additional participation arising on grass pitches for 11-a-side games is outlined earlier in this report, with the needs for AGPs to supplement or replace grass pitch capacity considered below.
Sports Calculator estimates for AGPs
As already noted above, the Sports Facilities Calculator can be used to understand the space requirement for AGPs for a given resident population. The
- 275 -
calculator suggests the following provision of full size AGPs is required for the resident population of the towns in 2026.
Figure 98: Sports Facility Calculator Estimates for number of AGPs required for resident population in Bournemouth and Poole 2026
Population 2026 Pitches VPWPP (visits equivalent (full per week in the size) peak period)
Bournemouth 197,510 6.78 5,020
Poole 158,870 4.55 3,368
Source: Sport England Sports Facilities Calculator, 2013
Total range of pitches required by 2026
A number of sources of data have been used above to estimate the range of AGPs required now and in the future for both football and hockey. The needs for each sport are different and so sharing AGPs is not likely to be a workable option. As well as data which seeks to identify direct demand for AGPs, the use of AGPs to accommodate some football matches which would have otherwise occurred on grass pitches needs to be considered where that option can be part of the solution to replace existing poor quality stock of grass pitches. An AGP could, for example, accommodate 5 matches a week (2 on a Saturday and 2 on a Sunday and one on a weekday evening) plus training, whereas a good quality grass pitch is only recommended to host 3 matches per week and a standard pitch only 2.
Figure 99 below pulls together the various data about the potential demand for both football and hockey servicing AGPs. In summary, it is estimated that there is a need for up to 3 full size football based AGPs in Bournemouth and up to 2 in Poole. In relation to hockey, up to 1 pitch could be required in Poole, although this is contingent on anticipated increases in participation. If they do not meet estimations and targets, it seems that there will not be sufficient demand to
- 276 -
support a full sized pitch for hockey, although sand based pitches can be used for football training (although it is not fully supported by the FA as an appropriate surface, preferring rubber crumb / 3G surfaces). For hockey in Bournemouth, although figures suggest demand for up to 1 full size pitch, it seems likely that a preferred solution to accommodate such demand would be to add an additional pitch to the site considered as the ‘hockey centre’ for south east Dorset, i.e. Chapel Gate. Further work would need to be undertaken by Bournemouth Borough Council in conjunction with Christchurch Borough Council and the EHB to determine the appropriateness of this although demand is likely to need to be demonstrated by the market to the owners of the Chapel Gate facility.
- 277 -
Figure 99: Comparing potential requirements for AGPs in Bournemouth and Poole
Additional Teams Additional Pitches Required ^
Pitch Additional Additional equivalent to NGB (EHB Pitch type team Potential Facilities Sports teams from TGR, / FA) Potential numbers in from latent Planning Facility participation participation suggested range 2026 demand Model # Calc. # increase change and demand (TGRs) latent<
Hockey (Sand / 2 – 4 (1.1*) 3 2.4 1.4 (1**) water based) (up to 3 > Bournemouth 3.5 5.3 football, Football (3G unk 4.4 ~ unk 0.1 & 2.5 up to 1 rubber crumb) hockey)
Hockey (Sand / 2 – 3 -0.3 2 1.9 0.9 0 water based) (up to 2 Poole 1.5 0.2 football, Football (3G unk 2.8 ~ unk 0.1 & 2 up to 1 rubber crumb) hockey)
Total 4 - 7 Notes: see over the page…
- 278 -
Notes:
* teams generated largely by population resident in Bournemouth but who play outside the Borough at Chapel Gate, Christchurch. unk - specific team numbers unavailable for AGPs. Calculations for football are generated for grass pitches. Some additional AGPs may be required but are likely to be proposed as solutions to making up known shortfalls or improving capacity and quality provided by the existing grass pitch supply, rather than through TGR data alone. Other sources also provide a ready source of robust detail on AGP requirements for football.
~ figures represent requirements for informal play only and are expressed in terms of the number of 11-a-side team squads (18 players).
< calculated on the basis that for hockey, 1 full size AGP can accommodate 4 matches on a Saturday when league games are played, supporting 4 home teams.
& - pitch equivalent for number of small sided teams and games generated by additional informal participation.
> The SFC does not take into account supply outside of the Borough boundary. Therefore, the figure will indicate the need for the resident population without taking into account the use made of the hockey pitches at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough and so the figure will be higher than that demonstrated in reality
** not necessarily to be provided in Bournemouth, but suggested as a potential need in the future at Chapel Gate depending on changes to participation.
^ Pitches are additional to existing supply which is 1 full size sand filled AGP at Talbot Heath School in Bournemouth; and, 1 full size sand based pitch at Ashdown Leisure Centre, 1 full size rubber crumb pitch at Canford Park Sports Arena and 2 at Canford Sports Centre (one sand based and one water filled). Small sided pitches are not included in some calculations, which are noted with a # symbol. Small sided pitches catering solely for football are located at Pelhams Park Leisure Centre (8), Sir David English Leisure Centre (3) and Littledown Leisure Centre (6) in Bournemouth; and, at Bournemouth University (2) and The Hamworthy Club (1) in Poole. While the redgra area at Turlin Moor Recreation Ground has 3 small sided game ‘pitches’, it is not classed as a dedicated artificial grass pitch.
# does not include small sided pitches with an artificial surface. The FPM and SFC do not differentiate between AGPs for hockey and football.
- 279 -
Conclusions
AGPs can provide a secure and high quality surface on which to play hockey, football and rugby (for training) where they meet the IRB regulation 22 standard22. Hockey is played on sand and water filled pitches with a 25mm pile and the AGPs are used for both matches and training. For football, in recent years, the popularity of AGPs has increased with most informal play (5 and 7-a- side in particular) and some training taking place on AGPs. The preference for football use is for 40mm or (preferably) 60mm rubber crumb AGPs, which cannot be used for hockey, whereas such surfaces can be shared with rugby for training purposes where the AGP is sufficiently sprung. Football is now sanctioned for competitive play on AGPs, given recent advances in surface improvement and the obvious advantages in quality, and therefore playing capacity, for matches over traditional grass pitches which require much more maintenance and where bad weather can result in high numbers of match cancellations during a season.
For any new additional AGPs delivered, location of such facilities are likely to be partially dependent upon the ability on or close to the site to administer them (for example, through which bookings can be taken, and through which the pitch can be opened and locked if fenced to maintain quality and so on).
Football
Football is catered for at the moment predominantly by small 5 or 7-a-side pitches in Bournemouth at Pelham Park, Littledown and Sir David English Leisure Centres, with the later pitches having the capability to be used as a full size pitch (although it is understood the pitch rarely used on that basis). Outside of this provision there is some community use of a full size pitch at Talbot Heath School. Smaller sided pitches will continue to play an important role in the overall supply of AGPs for football, but new additional AGPs should normally be provided at full size given their flexibility to be used for small sided games.
22 IRB 22 relates to the standard required of artificial turf for rugby. See http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/21/57/42157_pdf.pdf for the full regulation.
- 280 -
In Poole, there are small size permanent AGP pitches at the University, the Hamworthy Club and Carter School, each of which have some community use. While there are two full size AGPs at Canford School, they are sand and water filled surfaces and not suitable for football. The only full size pitch suitable for football is the pitch at Canford Park Sports which is commercially run.
There are two known Football Association priorities for football for the provision of AGPs at Slades Farm (a new additional AGP with some access for rugby) and in Poole for a new AGP at Hamworthy United (County Ground), a proposed replacement for an existing grass pitch. The full size AGP at Ashdown Leisure Centre is used for football as well as hockey (see below).
In order to maximise opportunity for capacity from existing AGPs, opportunities should be explored to open up commercial and school sites with AGPs to an increased amount of time for community use.
Bournemouth Borough Council and the Borough of Poole should work closely with Active Dorset and the Football Association to identify other suitable sites (including existing grass pitch sites where quality is an issue) for new AGPs and surfaces should also be designed to be able to accommodate rugby training. Preferred locations will be where there is existing provision to oversee the hiring, opening and closing of facilities during peak and off-peak times and outside of the catchments of existing AGPs to provide an improved geographical / spatial distribution of pitches across the Boroughs.
Surfaces for AGPs proposed for football should be ‘future proofed’ to ensure that they are capable of accommodating rugby training (i.e. that they meet the IRB regulation 22 standard23).
23 IRB 22 relates to the standard required of artificial turf for rugby. See http://www.irb.com/mm/document/lawsregs/regulations/04/21/57/42157_pdf.pdf for the full regulation.
- 281 -
Hockey
Hockey needs are reasonably well-provided for in Poole with the Ashdown Leisure Centre hosting Poole Hockey Club, although there are issues relating to the ancillary facilities there. In Bournemouth, hockey is played outside the Borough at nearby Chapel Gate in Christchurch. This is understood to be considered as the ‘home’ of hockey in Bournemouth with Bournemouth Hockey Club and the University Hockey Club using the facility as its base. Despite its location outside of Bournemouth Borough, there is no real desire expressed by England Hockey, nor by Bournemouth Hockey Club to move into the Borough to a new facility and England Hockey has confirmed its support for the facility through recent investment in a new surface on one of the pitches there. The University club has expressed a desire to have better access to a closer AGP, however, if the club is to grow, with transport to the facility several miles from the University posing problems for some students.
Bournemouth
In Bournemouth, the findings translate into a need to identify locations for up to 3 AGPs for resident based play with a surface suitable for football which will serve informal small sided play and training for teams, as well as supporting pitch provision for competitive 11-a-side games. The provision of AGPs should therefore play a key role in supporting the overall demand for match play pitches. Further AGPs may be required to support match equivalent growth in unmet demand by 2026 (11 – 37 matches per week), if that demand is demonstrated ‘on the ground’ by that time (see assessment for grass pitches).
In addition to provision for the resident population, a need for up to 1 AGP has been identified to serve the demand arising from international students. International Colleges should discuss options for provision with Bournemouth Borough Council and other partners such as Academies and the University to consider suitable sites and funding options available, and to ensure that any proposals are aligned with the needs identified in this assessment and the Sports Strategy for AGPs for the resident population. If possible, provision should be
- 282 -
made to accommodate demand within a 20 minute walking catchment of one or more of the 5 biggest international colleges.
The priority for provision of the first AGP required to meet demand should be at Slades Farm where the AGP can also play a role in supporting rugby training to relieve some pressure on pitches at Meyrick Park, in particular. There may also be opportunities at King’s Park as part of the masterplanning for the site should the proposed ice rink be developed.
There is a need identified for up to 1 additional AGP for hockey in the longer- term and the potential need for a pitch suitable for hockey should be revisited in the middle part of the strategy period to understand fully whether demand is present. A new hockey AGP may or may not be located in Bournemouth itself, with the ‘hockey centre’ now being developed at Chapel Gate in Christchurch Borough and further work with Christchurch Borough Council and England Hockey will be needed to define need and the most appropriate location for an additional pitch to serve Bournemouth’s population.
Poole
In Poole, the findings translate into a need to identify locations for up to 2 AGPs with a surface suitable for football which will serve informal small sided play and training for teams, as well as supporting pitch provision for competitive 11-a- side games. The provision of AGPs should therefore play a key role in supporting the overall demand for match play pitches.
The FA supports proposals for an AGP to replace the existing grass pitch at Hamworthy United FC which would see significant levels of secured community use. However, it is understood that discussions are on-going between the FA and the local authority about the most appropriate site for an AGP to serve the area.
For hockey, there could be potential demand for up to 1 pitch, although it is recommended that demand should be demonstrable prior to any additional provision, as the demand estimated comes principally from latent demand and
- 283 -
participation increases, which may or may not be realised ‘on the ground’ during the strategy period. In addition, the provision of additional AGPs for football may free up any additional necessary capacity for hockey currently used for football at Ashdown Leisure Centre AGP.
- 284 -
Appendix 1
Provision Standards
- 285 -
Introduction
Provision standards can be helpful to understand the quantity of provision (in terms of playing fields or facilities) that is available for the resident population and can also be used to establish approximate provision that should be made available to the growing population. The figures provide a measure of how much land area will be needed for new pitches across the Boroughs and can help to determine the appropriate developer contributions for on-site sports provision (where they apply) or appropriate contributions from community infrastructure levy (CIL) funds where relevant.
Caveats
The figures provide estimated quantification of existing and future playing pitch and built facility provision for the Borough populations as a whole. However, provision standards have been relied on too much in the past as figures which can be taken to give a definitive answer to demand for a given population for facilities and pitches. As a result, recent playing pitch guidance and emerging built facilities guidance steers users away from reliance on standards and more towards a focus on utilising them as part of an overall strategy which can set out details which can be hidden by use of figures alone. Therefore, provision standards should not be used in isolation. The strategy and assessments as a whole should take precedence over the use of provision standards when identifying needs.
The calculations are based upon pitches and facilities which have community access. Changes to provision implied by the figures will therefore not always be as straightforward as the data may suggest.
Standards for playing pitches do not include areas for ancillary facilities which would need to be calculated on a site by site basis. As a ‘rule of thumb’ a 10% - 15% allowance could be added on to the areas calculated for pitches to give an
- 286 -
indication of additional space needed. However, calculations do include allowance for run-off around pitches. The sources used to identify pitch sizes are those issued by national sports governing bodies and Sport England between 2011 and 2013.
For built facilities, the standards also allow for run-off where appropriate. For swimming pools, the requirements are expressed as area of water or pool space and do not take into account the footprint of the building, which would need to be calculated on a site by site basis or allowance of an additional 15% of space as a ‘rule of thumb’.
Methodology
The process of establishing provision standards is broadly as follows.
1. Establish the current provision standard (number of hectares per 1,000 people) from data on the supply of pitches and existing population.
2. Establish the latent demand (in terms of pitches and equivalent land area) from the existing population.
3. Establish the current surplus and deficiencies in the number of pitches and equivalent land area.
4. Estimate the future surplus and deficiencies in the number of pitches and equivalent land area using projections of population and demand.
5. Establish future provision standards from existing and future pitch needs and population projections.
The figures used to calculate the standards below can all be found in the assessments for pitches and facilities.
- 287 -
The detail of the calculations used is captured in Figures A2.2 and A2.3 at the end of this appendix.
Provision Standards
In summary, the playing pitch and facility provision standards are as follows. Pitch requirements are expressed as hectares per 1,000 population and built facilities as square meters per 1,000 population.
Figure A2.1: Provision Standards Summary
Suggested standard per 1,000 population for
Pitch / Facility Type 2026
Bournemouth Poole
Swimming pools 8.9 m2 11.6 m2
Sports halls 58.3 m2 59.4 m2
Outdoor tennis courts 428.4 m2 334.1 m2
Multi-use Games Areas 56 m2 117.8 m2
Outdoor netball courts 169.2 m2 18.9 m2
Athletics tracks 139.7 m2 173.7 m2
Squash 1.5 m2 8.1 m2
Artificial Grass Pitches 172.8 m2 322.3 m2 (full size)
Fitness gyms not requested for strategy 8.9 m2
Wheel parks 15.9 m2 14.5 m2
Grass playing pitches 0.5 ha 0.24 ha
- 288 -
Figure A2.2i: Built Facility Standards for Bournemouth
Pools ~ (equivalent Sports Halls Outdoor MUGAs (open Netball number of standard (badminton court tennis courts and partial (outdoor Athletics & Squash AGPs (full size) Wheel Parks ## size lanes) equivalents) ^ ** access) * courts) #
A Number of existing facilities 30.6 63.0 110.0 7.0 34.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 6.0 Minimum size (including % for run B off, ancillary provision, etc. for dry 50.0 172.5 769.2 851.0 982.8 27,600.0 71.8 8,533.0 190.0 facilities) C Current provision (sqm) (A x B) 1,530.0 10,867.5 84,611.5 5,957.0 33,415.3 27,600.0 287.0 8,533.0 1140.0 Number of identified shortfalls D 4.4 3.8 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 10.0 (unmet demand or spatial gaps) E Minimum size 50.0 172.5 769.2 851.0 982.8 27,600.0 71.8 8,533.0 200.0 Future additional requirements F 220.0 646.9 0.0 5,106.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25,599.0 2000.0 (sqm) (D x E) G Total Requirements to 2026 (C + F) 1,750.0 11,514.4 84,611.5 11,063.0 33,415.3 27,600.0 287.0 34,132.0 3140.0 H Population in 2026 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197,510.0 197510.0 Total requirements per 1,000 I population in 2026 (sqm) (G / 2026 8.9 58.3 428.4 56.0 169.2 139.7 1.5 172.8 15.9 population x 1,000)
For notes, see over.
- 289 -
Notes for Figures A2.2i and 2.2ii.
& - athletics based upon guidance www.sportengland.org/media/32312/Athletics.pdf ~ pools based on number of 25m x 2m lane equivalents. Standard for area of water required. Allow +15% for ancillary facilities in addition to area for standard. * - open and partial access MUGAs. Typical size for a 'kick-about MUGA for basketball and football - see http://www.sportengland.org/media/30552/Artificial-Surfaces-for-Outdoor- Sports-2012.pdf (18.5m x 40m + 15%) The number identified as a shortfall is based purely upon spatial gaps in provision and number of areas of search identified for exploring potential locations for new MUGAs. < - squash courts include those re-opened in December 2013 at the Poole Sports Centre. Court dimensions based on single court size of 9.75 x 6.4 m - http://www.sportengland.org/media/32339/Comparative-Sizes-Checklist-April- 2011.pdf ** based on length of 40m x width of 5.5m per rink (http://www.sportengland.org/media/32384/Indoor-bowls.pdf) # Netball dimensions based upon http://www.sportengland.org/media/32339/Comparative-Sizes-Checklist-April- 2011.pdf > - based on 5 sqm per piece of equipment / station http://www.sportengland.org/media/32375/Fitness-and-exercise-spaces.pdf Leisure centre gyms (i.e. for those in which the Council still has an interest) included only. *** - tennis courts include mini courts and floodlit courts - 36.57 x 18.29m - http://www.sportengland.org/media/32339/Comparative-Sizes-Checklist-April- 2011.pdf ## wheel parks size does not include commercial skate parks. Curent area of provision is estimated. The number of facilities required is actualy the number of areas of search and the actual number needed on the ground is likely to be less.
- 290 -
Figure A2.2ii: Built Facility Standards for Poole
Pools ~ (equivalent Sports Halls Outdoor MUGAs (open Indoor Netball Fitness AGPs (full number of standard (badminton court tennis and partial Bowls (outdoor Athletics & Squash < gyms Wheel Parks ## size) size lanes) equivalents) courts *** access) * (rinks) ** courts) # (stations) >
A Number of existing facilities 34.4 52.0 69.0 13.0 11.0 30.0 1.0 18.0 219.0 4.0 5 Minimum size (including 15% for B run off, ancillary provision, etc. for 50.0 172.5 100 dry facilities) 769.2 851.0 253.0 982.8 27600.0 71.8 5.8 8533.0 C Current provision (sqm) (A x B) 1718.0 8970.0 53074.5 11063.0 2783.0 29484.0 27600.0 1291.7 1259.3 34132.0 500 D Number of identified shortfalls 2.4 2.7 0.0 9.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 2.0 9 E Minimum size 50.0 172.5 769.2 851.0 253.0 982.8 27600.0 71.8 5.8 8533.0 200 Future additional requirements F 118.0 469.2 0.0 7659.0 220.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 155.3 17066.0 1800 (sqm) (D x E) G Total Requirements to 2026 (C + F) 1836.0 9439.2 53074.5 18722.0 3003.1 29484.0 27600.0 1291.7 1414.5 51198.0 2300 H Population in 2026 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158870.0 158,870 Total requirements per 1,000 I population in 2026 (sqm) (G / 2026 11.6 59.4 334.1 117.8 18.9 185.6 173.7 8.1 8.9 322.3 14.5 population x 1,000)
For notes, see preceding page.
- 291 -
Figure A2.3i: Playing Pitch Standards for Bournemouth
Football Rugby Mini / Cricket Total Notes Senior Youth Junior Mini Senior Junior Existing number of A 33 4 4 19 11 0 14 85 pitc hes Pitch area (max. size for 1 pitc h in 70x106 97x60 88x56 61x 43 154x80 80x53 111.56x128.04 - B metres) Pitch area 7420 5820 4928 2623.00 12320 4240 14284.14 - (metres squared)
Existing total area Row B x (A / 10,000) and C 24.49 2.33 1.97 4.98 13.55 0.00 20.00 67.32 of pitches (ha) sub-totals summed. Existing D 183,460 population (2011) Row C / (D / 1,000). Area (ha) per Figures are based on 1,000 population requirements for pitches E 0.37 (existing provision and do not include land standard) area for ancillary facilities.
Existing surplus / F deficiency 6.25 0.5 -0.5 -5 -4 0 0 - (number) Existing surplus / G deficiency (area 4.64 -0.20 -1.30 -4.93 0.00 0.00 -1.79 Row B x (F / 10,000) ha)
Existing defic it Source: ECB for cricket H from non-replac ed - pitches. pitches (number)
Existing defic it Row H x (B / 10,000) and I from non-replac ed 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 sub-totals summed. pitches (area ha) Surplus / defic ienc y arising Difference between row J 4.64 0 -1.30 -4.93 0.00 0 -1.79 G and row I and sub- from existing totals summed. population (ha) Existing K 183,460 See note to row D. population
Existing defic ienc y L area (ha) per -0.02 Row J / (K/1,000) 1,000 population
Projec ted surplus M / defic ienc y by -18.5 0 0 0 -7.5 0 -5 -31 2026 (number) Projec ted surplus Row B x (M / 10,000) N / defic ienc y by -14 0.0 0.00 -9.24 0.00 -7 -30.11 and sub-totals summed. 2026 (area ha) Also, see note to row M. Surplus / defic ienc y arising Difference between row J O from additional 18.36 0.20 1.30 -4.31 0.00 -7.14 8.41 and row N and sub-totals population (area summed. ha) Projected Also, see note to rows M P 197,510 population 2026 and D. Projected additional Row P - row D. Also, Q 14,050 population to see note to row P. 2026 Area per 1,000 Row O total / (row Q / R population 0.60 1,000). (additional)
Projected total pitch area Row N total + row J total. S defic ienc y by -31.90 Also, see note to row P. 2026 (ha) (+ = surplus) Projected total pitch area Difference between row T 99.22 S and row C. Also, see required by 2026 note to row P. (ha) Projected area Row T / (row P / 1,000). (ha) required per Also, see note to row P. 1,000 population Figures are based on U 0.50 requirements for pitches by 2026 (future and do not include land provision area for ancillary standard) facilities.
- 292 -
Figure A2.3i: Playing Pitch Standards for Poole
Football Rugby Cricket Total Notes Senior Youth Junior Mini Senior Mini Existing number of A 38 0 9 12 3 1 12 75 pitc hes Pitch area (max. size for 1 pitc h in 70x106 97x60 88x56 61x 43 154x80 80x53 111.56x128.04 - B metres) Pitch area 7420 5820 4928 2623.00 12320 4240 14284.14 - (metres squared)
Existing total area Row B x (A / 10,000) and C 28.20 0.00 4.44 3.15 3.70 0.42 17.14 57.04 of pitches (ha) sub-totals summed. Existing D 148,080 population Row C / (D / 1,000). Area (ha) per Figures are based on 1,000 population requirements for pitches E 0.39 (existing provision and do not include land standard) area for ancillary facilities.
Existing surplus / F deficiency 17.25 0 -1 16.25 1.5 0 1 - (number) Existing surplus / G deficiency (area 20.87 -0.40 4.22 1.85 0.00 1.43 27.96 Row B x (F / 10,000) ha)
Existing defic it Source: ECB for cricket H from non-replac ed - pitches. pitches (number)
Existing defic it Row H x (B / 10,000) and I from non-replac ed 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 sub-totals summed. pitches (area ha) Surplus / defic ienc y arising Difference between row J 20.87 0 4.22 1.85 0.00 1 27.96 G and row I and sub- from existing totals summed. population (ha) Existing K 148,080 See note to row D. population
Existing defic ienc y L area (ha) per 0.24 Row J / (K/1,000) 1,000 population
Projec ted surplus M / defic ienc y by 0.5 0 0 0 -3.6 0 -3 -6.1 2026 (number) Projec ted surplus Row B x (M / 10,000) and N / defic ienc y by 0 0.0 0.00 -4.44 0.00 -4 -8.35 sub-totals summed. 2026 (area ha) Also, see note to row M. Surplus / defic ienc y arising Difference between row J O from additional 20.49 0.40 -4.22 -6.28 0.00 -5.71 4.68 and row N and sub-totals population (area summed. ha) Projected Also, see note to rows M P 158,870 population 2026 and D. Projected additional Row P - row D. Also, Q 10,790 population to see note to row P. 2026 Area per 1,000 Row O total / (row Q / R population 0.43 1,000). (additional)
Projected total pitch area Row N total + row J total. S defic ienc y by 19.61 Also, see note to row P. 2026 (ha) (+ = surplus) Projected total pitch area Difference between row T 37.43 S and row C. Also, see required by 2026 note to row P. (ha) Projected area Row T / (row P / 1,000). (ha) required per Also, see note to row P. 1,000 population Figures are based on U 0.24 requirements for pitches by 2026 (future and do not include land provision area for ancillary standard) facilities.
- 293 -