Milton Keynes Sport and Leisure Strategy Refresh

Transcription

Sport and Leisure Strategy
Milton Keynes
Sport and Leisure Strategy Refresh
Draft Report - December 2010
www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/leisure-and-culture
MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL Milton Keynes Sport and Leisure Strategy Refresh DRAFT REPORT DECEMBER 2010 Nortoft Partnerships Limited 2 Green Lodge Barn, Nobottle, Northampton NN7 4HD Tel: 01604 586526 Fax: 01604 587719 Email: info@nortoft.co.uk Web: www.nortoft.co.uk TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 7 DEMOGRAPHICS 9 Milton Keynes as a whole Population by sub area 9 10 BUILT FACILITY REFRESH 17 Sports Halls Introduction Current provision Location of facilities Modelling Facilities Planning Model Sports Facilities Calculator Future proposals Proposed standards from 2009 strategy Refresh Performance sport requirements Badminton Basketball Recommendations 17 17 18 20 23 23 24 26 26 27 28 28 28 29 Swimming Pools Introduction Current provision Location and ownership Modelling Facilities Planning Model Sports Facilities Calculator Proposed standards from 2009 strategy Refresh Recommendations 31 31 32 32 39 39 40 41 41 43 Artificial Grass Pitches Introduction Current provision Proposed standards from 2009 strategy Sports Facilities Calculator Refresh Recommendations 44 44 45 49 49 50 52 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 2 of 98 Parks and open spaces Demand for sport and physical activity The providers 53 53 55 PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY 57 Introduction 57 Football Current provision Current demand Assessment Whole authority Summary Findings and comparison to the 2009 Strategy Proposals and recommendations 59 59 61 63 63 66 70 72 Cricket Current provision Current demand Assessment Findings and comparison to the 2009 Strategy Proposals and recommendations 73 73 73 74 78 79 Rugby Current provision Current and future demand Assessment Comparison to the 2009 Strategy Proposals and recommendations 80 80 80 81 85 86 Other grass playing field sports Summary and guidelines for provision Proposed standard for quantity of playing field space Standards and guidelines for quality and accessibility Summary of investment proposals Football Cricket Rugby Baseball and softball 87 88 88 89 90 90 90 91 91 POLICY AND PLANNING TO DELIVER 92 Integration with planning policy 96 PROPOSED FACILITIES 97 Monitoring and review 98 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 3 of 98 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Population at 2010, and difference in population projections for 2026 9 Figure 2: Number of new dwellings up to 2026 by sub area 10 Figure 3: Percentage of total new dwellings by sub area 10 Figure 4: Population change up to 2020 11 Figure 5: Population densities at 2010 and 2020 12 Figure 6: Sub‐area population estimates 13 Figure 7: Differences in sub area populations (2008 and 2010 figures) 14 Figure 8: Sports halls sizes 18 Figure 9: Sports halls‐ current provision 19 Figure 10: Sports Halls location 21 Figure 11: Sports Halls within the sub‐region 22 Figure 12: Sports Facilities Calculator results‐ sports halls 25 Figure 13: Sports hall provision per 1000 calculation 27 Figure 14: Current swimming pool provision in Milton Keynes 33 Figure 15: Swimming pools current provision in Milton Keynes 36 Figure 16: Swimming pools and IMD 37 Figure 17: Swimming pools in the wider area 38 Figure 18: Sports Facilities Calculator results‐ swimming pools 40 Figure 19: Swimming pool needs up to 2026 42 Figure 20: AGP surfaces and use by sport 46 Figure 21: AGPs‐ current provision in Milton Keynes 47 Figure 22: AGPs large and small size 48 Figure 23: Sports Facilities Calculator results‐ AGPs 49 Figure 24: AGP forecast of needs 51 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 4 of 98 Figure 25: Most popular sports in England 53 Figure 26: Total sample – facilities used by households in Milton Keynes 54 Figure 27: Strategy Sub Areas 58 Figure 28: Multi‐pitch sites with secure community use 59 Figure 29: Single pitch sites with secure community use 60 Figure 30: Comparison between Team numbers‐ actual and estimated 61 Figure 31: Team Generation Rates compared 61 Figure 32: Estimated football team numbers to 2026 63 Figure 33: Provision of football pitches with secure community use in MK 64 Figure 34: Summary of pitch requirements to 2026 66 Figure 35: 2009 Strategy and 2010 Refresh compared 67 Figure 36: Football requirements‐ provision per 1,000 population 68 Figure 37: Estimated balance in supply and demand by sub‐area 69 Figure 38: Football‐ Key findings compared with 2009 Strategy 70 Figure 39: Cricket team numbers compared 73 Figure 40: Cricket Team Generation Rates compared 74 Figure 41: Estimated cricket team numbers to 2026 74 Figure 42: Cricket team supply and demand balance to 2026 – whole authority 75 Figure 43: Cricket requirements‐ provision per 1,000 population 75 Figure 44: Cricket estimated balance in supply and demand by sub‐area 77 Figure 45: Cricket‐ Key findings compared with 2009 Strategy 78 Figure 46: Rugby team numbers compared 80 Figure 47: Rugby Team Generation Rates compared 81 Figure 48: Estimated rugby team numbers to 2026 81 Figure 49: Demand, supply and balance for rugby (match demand only) 83 Figure 50: Demand, supply and balance for rugby (match plus training demand) 84 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 5 of 98 Figure 51: Rugby requirements‐ provision per 1,000 population 85 Figure 52: Planning standards for playing pitches 88 Figure 53: Proposed Facilities 97 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 6 of 98 INTRODUCTION 1.
2.
The Sport and Leisure Strategy 2009‐14 “Getting Milton Keynes more active, more often’ was adopted by Milton Keynes Council in April 2009 as the strategic document for the implementation of a sporting and leisure facilities infrastructure within the Borough. Contained within it was a commitment to review and refresh the recommendations, to take account of the changing economic, environmental and sporting background as an interim measure before the full review in 2013. The 2009 Strategy addressed both the needs of the existing population, and those which would arise from the planned housing growth. The fundamental objectives for the Strategy included: •
•
•
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
increasing the rates of physical activity across all sectors and all ages within the community; improving the sporting profile of Milton Keynes; and retaining and improving the quality of life in Milton Keynes in order to support economic growth and regeneration. The objectives of the 2009 Strategy remain valid but the changes in the economic climate and planning policies, in relation to housing growth, has meant that the long term population forecasts for Milton Keynes have changed significantly. For example, approximately 25,300 less people are now expected to be living in Milton Keynes by 2026 than were forecast for the 2009 Strategy. This means that many of the forecast sports facility needs up to 2026 require some revision. In relation to the sporting scene, the 2018 Football World Cup bid meant that Milton Keynes was directly represented on the world stage with indirect benefits to the City. The emerging concept of the International Sporting City, with its strong partnership approach will ensure that these benefits are capitalised on, and that new high profile opportunities are exploited in the future. The importance of high quality local parks and green spaces are becoming ever more important to the objective of increasing participation rates in physical activity, and also as venues for sport. The Refresh therefore strengthens the policies and commitments to the use of green spaces, and the partnerships necessary to deliver on their potential. In relation to the major built facilities, the brief for the Refresh focuses on swimming pools, sports halls and artificial grass pitches as these will be most impacted upon by the changing population projections. Similarly the grass pitch provision for football, cricket and rugby also needs to take account of the location of the planned housing growth. Some sports such as football have grown at rates beyond that originally forecast, whilst other have been slower to establish themselves. The Refresh takes these into account where known. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 7 of 98 8.
9.
10.
The opportunity has also been taken to explore the feasibility and need for a sports high performance centre, which might also deliver local community sport. All other sports and facility proposals are unaffected and the standards from the 2009 Strategy remain the same for this Refresh. However, the full list of proposals will need revisiting at the full strategy review in 2013. Finally, the planning policies which are essential to deliver the proposals (both new and improved facilities) require review as the primary focus is now on the need for refurbishment of the existing stock, rather than a large number of new facilities. These policy changes will need to be reflected in the changing statutory planning framework which will guide future growth and investment. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 8 of 98 DEMOGRAPHICS Milton Keynes as a whole 11.
The recent changes in the number of houses which are planned for the period up to 2026 are resulting in a different picture of the future population of Milton Keynes. It is estimated that the total population at 2026 will be approximately 298,450. The demographics used for the 2009 Strategy estimated that the total would be around 323,750. This is a fall of 25,300 people less than originally planned. If the profiles are compared, using the latest information from Milton Keynes Intelligence, it can be seen that there are some notable differences, see Figure 1 below. For completeness, the current population is also graphed (the blue line). Figure 1: Population at 2010, and difference in population projections for 2026 12.
This Figure shows that: •
•
•
•
•
Overall there is now expected to be an increase in each age group up to 2026 using the new forecasts, with the exception of those 25‐29 and 35‐39 years; There is little increase in the total number of people aged 20‐49 years (5,600 people) in the period up to 2026; There will be an increase of about 13,600 people aged 10‐45 years up to 2026 (compared to the 2009 Strategy forecast of nearly 32,000); The new forecast suggests that the older age groups will become an increasingly large section of the population, with the percentage of those aged 55 years and over rising from 23% to about 30% by 2026; However, the numbers of older people expected will be largely as per the 2009 Strategy. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 9 of 98 13.
The most notable implications will be in relation to football and rugby as the majority of players are aged under 45 years. Swimming pools, sports halls and artificial grass pitches have a greater spread of users, although are still affected to some degree. Those facilities such as bowls in the 2009 Strategy are little affected as the actual numbers of older people is forecast to remain the same. Population by sub area 14.
The growth of Milton Keynes will be geographically uneven, reflecting the planned housing growth. The numbers of new dwellings now proposed for each sub area of the authority are illustrated by the table and pie chart below. Figure 2: Number of new dwellings up to 2026 by sub area Sub Area Central East South North West Rural West Rural East Total
Dwellings 4893 8945 2472 1321 8427 45 611 26714 Figure 3: Percentage of total new dwellings by sub area 15.
The map in Figure 4 shows in more detail where this growth will be located in the period up to 2020, and the maps in Figure 5 show how this will impact upon the expected population densities by 2020. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 10 of 98 Figure 4: Population change up to 2020 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 11 of 98 Figure 5: Population densities at 2010 and 2020 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 12 of 98 16.
As the quinary age forecasts are not yet available, to calculate the population at 2021 and 2026 (the key Core Strategy milestones), the number of new dwellings predicted to be built each year (for the relevant years) has been multiplied by 2.5 and added to the 2020 population figures provided by Milton Keynes Intelligence. However, this gives a total population at 2026 that is 5,781 less than the new borough total, so this remainder has been split between the sub areas on a proportional basis (the proportion of the population within each sub area before adding the 5,781). The final population estimates for each sub area are given in Figure 6. Figure 6: Subarea population estimates Central East South North West Rural West Rural East 17.
18.
2011 45214 15058 38673 56278 53582 4250 28434 2016
47853
18510
40638
58019
60581
4206
27971
2020
50769
23220
42326
59474
65535
4051
26943
2021
51187
25603
42776
59484
66644
4051
26943
2026 56517 34149 44052 60667 71459 4131 27475 Growth 2010‐2026
11303 19092 5379 4389 17877 ‐119 ‐959 The largest planned growth is therefore in the West and East, with some significant growth also in the Central area. There are relatively small amounts of growth in the South and North, but there are reducing populations in the two rural areas. The difference between the 2008 sub area populations and the new estimates for the period up to 2026 are illustrated in Figure 7 for each of the sub‐areas. It should be noted that the vertical scales for each graph change. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 13 of 98 Figure 7: Differences in sub area populations (2008 and 2010 figures) Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 14 of 98 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 15 of 98 19.
These graphs suggest that: •
•
•
•
All of the City will experience growth, but the two rural areas will be largely unchanged (NB scale for these rural area graphs suggests that the changes are greater than they are in practice); The growth in the West is approximately in line with the 2009 Strategy demographics; The population in the East by 2026 may now be slightly greater than forecast for the 2009 Strategy; The other areas have less growth than previously planned for, but generally follow the growth pattern expected. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 16 of 98 BUILT FACILITY REFRESH Sports Halls Introduction 20.
21.
22.
23.
The standard methodology for measuring sports halls is by the number of badminton courts contained within the floor area. However it is recognised that there is extensive use of these types of facility by a wide range of other sports including basketball, volleyball, handball etc. Sports halls are generally considered to be of greatest value if they are of at least 3+ badminton court size, and with sufficient height to allow games such as badminton to be played. A spread of 4 court halls is often the most effective way of achieving the greatest accessibility for general community use. However, the space required for many indoor team games exceeds the space provided by a standard 4 court hall and in general terms the higher the standard of play the larger the space required. At higher levels of performance the playing area is usually the same size but increased safety margins and clear height may be required, as well as additional space requirements for spectators, teams and officials during competitions. Larger halls i.e. 6+ courts are therefore able to accommodate higher level training and/or competition as well as meeting day to day needs. Larger halls may also provide the option for more than one pitch/court which increases flexibility for both training and competition. The following table (Figure 8), taken from the Sport England Design Guidance Note on Sports Hall Size and Layout, identifies the hall size required to accommodate a range of sports at different levels of play. The table omits sports that need less space. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 17 of 98 Figure 8: Sports halls sizes Current provision 24.
The table below lists the halls of 3 courts and above size. This has changed little from the earlier strategy but the main differences are; the opening of Oakgrove School and MK Academy, and the replacement Bletchley Leisure Centre. There has also been closure of one of the sports halls at Radcliffe. This facility lists gives a current total of 93 badminton courts across the authority. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 18 of 98 Figure 9: Sports halls current provision Site Name BLADERUNNER SPORTS COMPLEX BLETCHLEY LEISURE CENTRE BURY LAWN SCHOOL COURTSIDE SPORTS & FITNESS @ MILTON KEYNES COLLEGE DAVID LLOYD CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) FUSION HEALTH CLUB @ THE NATIONAL BADMINTON CENTRE LEON LEISURE CENTRE LORD GREY SCHOOL Number of Access Type courts 4 Registered Membership use 6 Pay and Play Sports Club / Community 4 Association Year Built 1992
2010
2004
4 Pay and Play 2004
4 Registered Membership use 1997
8 Registered Membership use 2000
4 4 Pay and Play Pay and Play Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Sports Club / Community Association Sports Club / Community Association Sports Club / Community Association Sports Club / Community Association Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Pay and Play Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Pay and Play 1970
MK ACADEMY 4 OAKGROVE LEISURE CENTRE OUSEDALE SCHOOL (NEWPORT PAGNELL CAMPUS) 4 OUSEDALE SCHOOL (OLNEY CAMPUS) 4 RADCLIFFE SCHOOL SPORTS CENTRE 3 SHENLEY BROOK END SCHOOL 4 SHENLEY BROOK END SCHOOL 3 SHENLEY LEISURE CENTRE 4 ST PAULS CATHOLIC SCHOOL 3 STANTONBURY CAMPUS LEISURE CENTRE STANTONBURY CAMPUS LEISURE CENTRE 7 4 THE HAZELEY SCHOOL 4 WALTON HIGH SCHOOL WOUGHTON CENTRE 4 4 3 2009
2005
1963
2007
1961
2002
2002
1991
1984
1976
1976
2005
2003
1980
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 19 of 98 Location of facilities 25.
26.
27.
Figure 10 below shows the location and size of the 3+ badminton court sports halls in Milton Keynes. Of the 21 sports halls, 2 are full time public leisure centres (Bletchley, Woughton), 17 are located on education sites either as part of a school, dual‐use leisure centre, independent school or further education institution, and two are commercial venues. The map also identifies the proposed school sites in the WEA and EEA where it is expected that further sports hall provision will be made. Figure 11 shows how Milton Keynes sits within its sub‐region in relation to the larger sports halls. Although there are two 8 court sports halls within or close to Milton Keynes, these both have fairly specialist functions. The National Badminton Centre is primarily used for this sport and does not have the usual format, as the courts are set out in a single line, rather than blocks of four. The Cranfield Sports Hall is primarily for the use of students rather than the general community. The nearest 12 court halls are in Stoke Mandeville and Kettering, and both of these facilities also have a somewhat specialist role, one in disability sport and the other as the national volleyball training centre. Both halls are about 50 minutes drive from CMK, so there is little potential catchment overlap for regular users. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 20 of 98 Figure 10: Sports Halls location Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 21 of 98 Figure 11: Sports Halls within the subregion Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 22 of 98 Modelling 28.
A number of different modelling tools are used to assess the future needs for sports facilities. The results for sports halls are set out below for each tool. Facilities Planning Model 29.
The findings from the Facilities Planning Model for 2010 appear to indicate that Milton Keynes is well provided for sports halls compared to the rest of the South East Region or national average. Overall the findings are a good guide to the current situation across the authority, but there are some anomalies in the baseline information which means that the findings from the FPM need to be treated with a degree of caution. The main problem relates to Oakgrove and Woughton (see below), but as their catchments slightly overlap, one inaccuracy partially cancels out the other. The most recent population figures for Milton Keynes are also slightly higher than those used for the FPM, reducing the current provision per 1000 figure. 30.
The inaccuracies identified in the data on which the FPM findings are based are: • The exclusion of Oakgrove, a 4 court dual use centre; • The inclusion of two main halls at Woughton, when there should only be one; • Bletchley Leisure Centre information has not been updated, as it still refers to 8 courts instead of 6. 31.
Key findings from the FPM national assessment of 2010 suggest that: • The overall supply of sports hall space is sufficient to meet the current demand, with a current “surplus” of sports hall space of around 14 courts spread across the authority; • The total amount of badminton court space per 1000 is lower in Milton Keynes at 0.39 courts per 1000 than the regional average at 0.414 per 1000, but about the same as the national average of 0.387 courts per 1000; • Around 95% of the potential demand is satisfied, and more than 97% of visits are to sites within the authority; • The reason why people do not use a sports hall are that they are too far away from a hall to walk there, and do not have access to a car; • About 600 more visits per year are imported to the authority, than are exported; • The relative share of sports hall space is better than the national average, but slightly below the regional average; • With the current hours at each site, the halls are running at an average usage of the potential capacity of less than 70%, when 80% would be considered full; • Not all sites are open throughout the peak period of 40.5 hours, taken to be: Weekday: 17:00 to 22:00 Saturday: 09:30 to 17:30 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 23 of 98 Sunday: Total: 09:00 to 14:30, 17:00 to 19:30 40.5 Hours •
•
•
The sites with much fewer hours are all schools. These are: Bury Lawn School, Ousedale School (both Olney and Newport Pagnell campuses), Radcliffe School, The Hazeley School and Walton High School; Those sites running close to or above the 80% used capacity for the hours when they are open include: Bladerunner, Bury Lawn School, David Lloyd Club, National Badminton Centre, Ousedale School (Olney), Shenley Leisure Centre, St Paul’s Catholic, Walton High School and Woughton Leisure Centre; At present there is very little unmet demand, and no justification for an additional sports hall. Sports Facilities Calculator 32.
The Sports Facilities Calculator (SFC) is a tool developed by Sport England to assess the number of sports facilities needed for a certain population. It is not appropriate to use the tool for whole local authority populations, but is designed to be used to assess facility needs in areas of housing growth e.g. Sustainable Urban Extensions. 33.
The demand is calculated by using the national average provision per 1,000 (amongst other factors) for sports halls which is lower than the Milton Keynes figure. To enable the adopted standard of 0.45 at 2026 to be used, the demand has been increased by 20% in the SFC to more accurately assess the demand in the SUEs. 34.
In Milton Keynes this has been done for the Western Expansion Area (WEA) and the Eastern Expansion Area (EEA). The results can be seen below: Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 24 of 98 Figure 12: Sports Facilities Calculator results sports halls Western Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Select local authority
Enter population
Cost Variations
User Profile 1
99XX
Region Not Specified
13,618
Select county
Cost scaling
6%
Buckinghamshire
Step 4
Adjust Demand
25%
20%
0%
15%
Facility Requirements
Pools
Halls
Indoor Bowls
Size
202.54 sq.m.
3.81 Lanes
0.95 Pools
5.25 Courts
1.31 Halls
Cost
£2,335,405
£3,826,097
Synthetic Turf Pitches
0.32 Rinks
0.05 Centres
0.59 Pitches
£456,530 3G
£368,373 Sand
£87,981
Age profile of selected district
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Disclaimer
5%
10%
Sport England has made all reasonable endeavours to ensure the
accuracy of the material contained in this calculator. The Calculator has
been produced in good faith and Sport England does not accept any
liability that may come from the use of it. The use of the Calculator is
entirely at the users own risk and Sport England do not accept any
liable caused from its use.
0to4
5to9
10to14
15to19
20to24
25to29
30to34
35to39
40to44
45to49
50to54
55to59
60to64
65to69
70to74
75to79
80to84
85to89
90andover
15%
15%
5%
10%
15%
Age band
Eastern Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Enter population
Cost Variations
User Profile 1
99XX
8,930
Select county
Cost scaling
Buckinghamshire
6%
Step 4
Adjust Demand
25%
20%
0%
15%
Pools
Halls
Size
132.82 sq.m.
2.50 Lanes
0.63 Pools
3.44 Courts
0.86 Halls
Cost
£1,531,441
£2,508,962
Indoor Bowls
0.21 Rinks
0.04 Centres
0.39 Pitches
£299,370 3G
£241,560 Sand
£57,693
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd 15%
10%
10%
0to4
5to9
10to14
15to19
20to24
25to29
30to34
35to39
40to44
45to49
50to54
55to59
60to64
65to69
70to74
75to79
80to84
85to89
90andover
Disclaimer
15%
15%
5%
10%
15%
Age band
Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 25 of 98 35.
The results from the Sports Facilities Calculator show a need to provide 5.25 courts in the WEA and 3.44 courts in the EEA. This might be provided as a 6 court hall in the WEA and a 4 court hall in the EEA, depending upon how the rest of the sports hall network is developed. Future proposals 36.
Radcliffe School was seen as a potential site for both a large new sports hall and swimming pool for community use in the 2009 Strategy. However these proposals were not progressed as originally envisaged although Wolverton Pool is now being developed on an adjacent site. The school is now developing its own proposals, and is actively considering the development of a new 4‐court hall and full size artificial grass pitch. As it seems likely that these will be developed shortly, the sports hall is assumed to be a “given” in the future network. However the management is most likely to be via the school and as such it will be unlikely to be open during all peak hours, with most use being through block bookings. This will place some limits on the potential use by the community. 37.
In the period up to 2016 two additional secondary schools are planned, one for the Western Expansion Area (start date 2010), and one for the Eastern Expansion Area (start date 2012). It is proposed that both of these will have community use. School facilities beyond this date are yet to be determined. 38.
Also still under construction is The Arena, adjacent to Stadium MK (a 5000 seat arena). This could provide a competition home for some sports but this facility has not been included in the general count of sports halls as it is specialist facility, and therefore not designed, nor available for general community sport and active recreation. Proposed standards from 2009 strategy 39.
The Strategy proposed a provision rate of 0.43 courts per 1000 population up to 2021, and thereafter a standard of 0.45 badminton courts per 1000. 40.
Design standards should meet Sport England specifications. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 26 of 98 Refresh 41.
The sports hall space area in the previous strategy was based on an assumption that there should be a 1% pa increase in participation, this is still the case. Using the adopted standard of 0.45 courts per 1,000 at 2026, the calculations indicate that there is demand for an additional 41 courts at 2026 (see Figure 13). At the next full review of the strategy these standards should be reconsidered in the light of rates of provision in similar areas and the actual uptake of sports hall use in Milton Keynes. 42.
There are a number of ways to meet this demand. This could be through increasing use at existing sites or by developing new facilities. There are proposals for two new secondary schools in the western and eastern expansion areas and opportunities link new facilities to these should be taken. 43.
The reduction in the expected population levels in Milton Keynes has had a significant impact on the proposed number of sports halls now recommended in this refresh, compared to the provision envisaged in the 2009 Strategy. This is because each sports hall provides for approximately 9,000 people, and with a fall of around 25,300 population by 2026, this means that there is a decrease of around 11 badminton courts (or three 4‐court halls) in the period up to 2026 compared to the forecast demand in 2009. Figure 13: Sports hall provision per 1000 calculation Year Expected Extra population population of MK compared to 2010 (240,990) Number of badminton courts currently available Additional courts required to meet new growth alone at strategy adopted provision of 0.45 courts /1000 Total additional courts required at strategy adopted provision of 0.45 courts /1000 2011 245,300 93
2016 263,750 22,760 93
2021 284,600 43,610 93
2026 298,450 57,460 93
Total number of 4 court sports halls (rounded) 44.
45.
41 7
10 The FPM modelling showed a current surplus of 14 courts spread across the authority as a whole. The highest amount of unmet demand is located within Central Milton Keynes. The emerging International Sporting City report identifies the sports development need for a major performance venue (12 court sports hall). This type of facility may have some limits on the community access due to its specialist nature (elite training etc.). However the current unmet demand identified by the FPM in CMK, future Nortoft Partnerships Ltd 26 Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 27 of 98 growth in this area, and the need for a larger training and performance venue together (see below) provide the justification for this proposal. Performance sport requirements 46.
In addition to the modelling work consultation has been undertaken to determine the sports development needs of key national governing bodies in relation to indoor sports hall space. Badminton 47.
The National Badminton Centre is based in Milton Keynes and consists of an 8‐court sports hall specifically designed for training. 48.
Whilst the sports hall is of a high quality there are no spectator facilities and so it is not suitable for hosting competitions. The facility is very well used by local badminton clubs (8 in all) and does not have space within its programming schedule to cater for all of the demand. 49.
The National Governing Body is keen to host major national and possibly international competitions in Milton Keynes. A flexible space, possibly a 12 court hall, with a seating capacity of approx 2,000 – 3,000 and a sprung floor would cater for such demand and enable them to host competitions such as the All England Badminton Championships which are currently held at the Manchester Velodrome. Basketball 50.
MK Lions Basketball Club currently has a full time professional 1st team, academy and age group teams from U18 through to U13, all of which need to be training at the same venue at least 2 – 3 times per week. 51.
The club has recently gained planning permission for a change of use for an industrial unit which it will convert to contain 2 courts, one show court plus a separate training court. This offers a secure facility in the short to medium term, however the club aspires to have a facility which can cater for big games with an audience of up to 5,000 and also for all its training and development needs. 52.
This would require almost exclusive use of a 3 or 4 basketball court facility (the equivalent of 12 or 16 badminton courts), which would be difficult to accommodate in a shared use venue such as a community leisure centre. However it may be that the club’s larger matches could be played in such a facility whilst the highest level fixtures (potentially European Competitions) could be accommodated within the completed Arena:MK. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 28 of 98 53.
The provision of a 12 court hall which could meet the competition/performance needs of both sports and is supported within the International Sporting City report. Recommendations 54.
In the period up to 2026 a further 41 badminton court equivalents are required. It is not anticipated that all of these facilities will be provided at the same time, but phased to match the identified needs of the community and the International Sporting City. The 4 and 6 court halls would be developed primarily to serve their new local communities. The 12 court hall is a strategic facility, providing both for local community use and serving the needs of the whole authority. The proposed facilities are: 1 x 6 court hall at the new secondary school in the WEA (size dependent upon wider network) 1 x 4 court hall at the new secondary school in the EEA plus 1 x 4 or 6 court hall at Radcliffe 1 x 12 court central area (site to be identified), but ideally centrally located. •
In addition to providing for the extra demand linked to new housing growth, there will be a need to meet increasing demand from the existing population. This is the equivalent of around 13‐15 badminton courts (approx 3‐4 x 4‐court halls) spread across the authority, and may be most appropriately met through a combination of increasing opening hours and intensity of use of the existing sports halls, and/or private sector developments. •
The 12 court hall proposal should be progressed as soon as possible as there is clear justification in term of demand, and also a need for a performance venue as identified by the national governing bodies. The amount of time programmed for general community use will need to be balanced with the demands for training from the national governing bodies. If, however this 12 court hall cannot be realised, other large (6 or 8 court) sports halls should be developed when opportunities arise. •
The timetabling of the school linked facilities will need to reflect the development timetable for the new schools in the western and eastern expansion areas. The proposal at Radcliffe was included as a high priority in the Strategy of 2008 and should remain a key proposal. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 29 of 98 •
The school dual‐use halls would be satellite facilities, therefore developers’ contributions from the relevant sub‐areas should contribute towards them. •
The 12 court hall is envisaged to be multi‐purpose and to provide for a range of high level (performance) events. It is likely to be developed as a public‐private partnership but would need detailed feasibility studies and business planning to confirm the potential programming and viability. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 30 of 98 Swimming Pools Introduction 55.
56.
There is a mix of public and private water space within Milton Keynes this includes local authority owned and managed pools as well as those facilities where users are required to pay a membership fee such as the David Lloyd Club. There is one swimming pool located on a school site, and also some which are within hotel and conference venues and therefore have limited access for the general public. As with sports halls, the aspiration to make swimming as accessible as possible to the largest number of people possible would suggest that a network of small pools would be best. However, small pools limit flexibility in terms of the range of activities that can be undertaken, the ability to operate more than one activity at any time and the level of performance that can be accommodated. They can also be more expensive to operate relative to large pools. General community needs should be balanced with the wider sports development requirement, including support to clubs to offer opportunities in a wide range of pool‐based activities including: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
57.
58.
59.
60.
Swimming Water Polo Synchronised swimming Canoeing Lifesaving Diving Sub Aqua In general terms, the higher the level of performance, the greater the demands on pool size, depth and specific competition requirements (spectator capacity and specialist equipment). For example, a 25m x 6 lane pool can accommodate local/club level swimming galas but a 25m x 8 lane pool with electronic timing is required for county galas and league events. Moveable bulkheads that can sub‐divide pools and more recent innovations like moveable floors that can vary water depth, can significantly increase a pool’s flexibility. Learner pools provide the opportunity to offer a wide range of activities catering for the maximum number of users possible. Learner pools can be maintained at a slightly higher temperature than main pools making them suitable for use by young children, non swimmers and those with a disability. They offer income generating potential not only through pool parties and other hirings but also by reducing the impact on programming in the main pool. A teaching pool significantly enhances the local authority’s ability to deliver its Learn to Swim programme. A typical 25m x 6 lane pool is approximately 325m². With the addition of a learner pool this would typically increase by 160m² giving a total water space area of 485m². Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 31 of 98 61.
In determining the best locations for new swimming pool provision a number of factors need to be considered. Ideally they should be accompanied by other facilities such as a fitness suite to help ensure financial viability, or adjacent to school sites where both school and community use can be facilitated. Current provision 62.
The facility list has changed since the 2008 report, with the opening of the new Bletchley pool and the closure of the Bourton Mill pool. The pools at Woughton and Stantonbury have been refurbished, but only relatively minor improvements have been made at Middleton and none at Leon. Several of the commercial pools have changed their name, ownership or management. The updated list of current provision is given in Figure 14. Location and ownership 63.
64.
65.
Figure 15 below shows the location of the swimming pools with 150m2 and above water space within Milton Keynes, also identified by their ownership type. Almost 40% of the total amount of water space in Milton Keynes is currently via commercial providers, and several of these pools are located within the central area of the City. Their prime market tends to be commuters and few seek to attract the local community for general swimming. The type of pool and the IMD status of different areas in Milton Keynes is mapped at Figure 16. In relation to the overall distribution of the swimming pools, there is a clear lack of provision on the western flank of the City, and also in the eastern expansion area. Figure 17 shows how Milton Keynes sits within its sub‐region in relation to major facilities. Of particular note in relation to swimming provision is the Luton Aquatics Centre which is due to open in 2012. This complex will comprise a 50m competition pool with integrated diving pool, and 20m x 10m community pool. The Luton pool together with the 50m pool at Corby significantly reduces the demand for a 50m facility in Milton Keynes. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 32 of 98 Figure 14: Current swimming pool provision in Milton Keynes Site Name Facility Sub Type BLETCHLEY LEISURE CENTRE Main/General DW SPORTS FITNESS (MILTON KEYNES) Main/General BLADERUNNER SPORTS COMPLEX Main/General Pay and Play Management Code Included in assessment 9 437 Trust 2009 0 8 20 160 Commercial Management 9 1992 0 8 16 128 Commercial Management Pay and Play 1970 4 7 25 180 Main/General Pay and Play 1989 2008 5 10 33 333 Learner/Teaching
/ Training Pay and Play 1989 2008 0 5 10 50 Main/General Pay and Play 1976 2010 6 12 25 300 School/College/ University (in house) 9 Learner/Teaching
/ Training Pay and Play 1976 2010 0 5 8 40 School/College/ University (in house) 9 Area 25 Length (m) 17 Number Width of Lanes (m) 8 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Year Year Built Refurb
2010 Registered Membership use Registered Membership use LEON LEISURE CENTRE Main/General MIDDLETON SWIMMING POOL MIDDLETON SWIMMING POOL STANTONBURY CAMPUS LEISURE CENTRE STANTONBURY CAMPUS LEISURE CENTRE Access Type Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 School/College/ University (in house) Local Authority (in house) Local Authority (in house) 9 9 9 Page 33 of 98 Site Name Facility Sub Type WATLING WAY CENTRE Main/General WOUGHTON CENTRE Main/General LA FITNESS (MILTON KEYNES) Main/General VIRGIN ACTIVE CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) Main/General VIRGIN ACTIVE CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) Learner/Teaching
/ Training THE ABBEY HILL LEISURE CLUB Learner/Teaching
/ Training LIVINGWELL HEALTH CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) Learner/Teaching
/ Training SPIRIT HEALTH CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) Main/General DAVID LLOYD CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) Main/General Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Access Type Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Registered Membership use Year Year Built Refurb
Number Width of Lanes (m) Length (m) Area Management Code Included in assessment 1973 2001 4 7 20 150 Trust 9 1980 2010 4 8 20 160 Trust 9 2001 2003 1 8 15 120 Commercial Management 2000 2001 3 12 20 240 Commercial Management 9 2000 2001 0 3 6 18 Commercial Management 9 1991 0 4 8 32 Commercial Management 1994 0 6 8 48 Commercial Management 1986 2009 0 8 16 128 Commercial Management 1997 2007 6 13 25 325 Commercial Management 9 Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 34 of 98 Site Name Facility Sub Type BANNATYNES HEALTH CLUB (MILTON KEYNES) WOLVERTON COMMUNITY POOL (under construction) WOLVERTON COMMUNITY POOL (under construction) Access Type Year Year Built Refurb
Number Width of Lanes (m) Length (m) Area Management Code Included in assessment Main/General Registered Membership use 1987 2008 4 8 23 184 Commercial Management 9 Main/General Pay and Play 2011
6 13 25 325 Trust 9 7.5 13 97.5 Trust 9 Learner/Teaching
/Training Pay and Play 2011
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 35 of 98 Figure 15: Swimming pools current provision in Milton Keynes Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 36 of 98 Figure 16: Swimming pools and IMD Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 37 of 98 Figure 17: Swimming pools in the wider area Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 38 of 98 Modelling 66.
A number of different modelling tools are used to assess the future needs for sports facilities. The results for swimming pools are set out below. Facilities Planning Model 67.
The FPM national assessment was undertaken in early 2010 and gives a useful guide to the current picture, though it overstates the available water space as it erroneously includes Bourton Mill (25x 11 m leisure pool, 263 sq m) and has the old water space area for Bletchley which is 103 sq m more than the new 25 m x 8 lane pool. The total current water space is therefore actually 2404.5 sq m. 68.
The key findings for the current situation were: a. There is less total water space per 1000 than the national average. Taking into account the changes at Bourton Mill and Bletchley, the current provision per 1000 is 9.8 sq m compared to the national average of 12.64 sq m per 1000; b. Most of the demand is met, and most is retained within the authority area; c. Only a small amount of demand is exported; d. The main reason why people do not swim is that they are outside the walking catchment area for a pool and do not have access to a car; e. Several of the pools are used at more than 70% of their capacity, which is considered “full”; David Lloyd, Middleton, Stantonbury, Virgin Active, Watling Way, Woughton; f. Leon pool is running at less than 40% used capacity, probably due to its relatively poor attraction; g. Residents of Milton Keynes generally have less relative share of water space than the average for either the South East area or England; h. The area with least access to swimming pools (lowest rates of “relative share”) is those in the centre of the City. This is because although there are generally pools within walking distance, there is some lack of capacity and several of the pools are commercial and aimed at attracting commuters, rather than the local community which is relatively deprived. 69.
A new 25m x 6 lane plus teaching pool is in the process of development at Wolverton (providing a water area of 422.5 sq m), and is due to open 2013. The Wolverton pool will have a significant overlapping catchment with the Watling Way pool, and this may impact upon the latter’s longer term viability. There is also likely to be some redistribution of the swimming demand across the City as a whole once the new pool is opened. 70.
Should, however, the pool at Watling Way come out of community use during the period up to 2026 and no new pools be developed, this would reduce the rates of provision still further, down to 9.0 sq m per 1000. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 39 of 98 71.
Overall therefore there is already a significant shortfall in pool space across Milton Keynes. Even with the inclusion of Bourton Mill and the larger space at Bletchley, the FPM suggests that several pools are full beyond their reasonable capacity at peak times. The new pool at Wolverton will help, but will not be sufficient to meet the demands arising from the future growth of the City. In effect, it only helps to redress the current lack of facility space. Sports Facilities Calculator 72.
The Sports Facilities Calculator has been used to assess the demand for water space within the two expansion areas in Milton Keynes. The demand has been increased to 25% to reflect the adopted strategy provision per 1000 rate of 15.6m2. The results are shown below. Figure 18: Sports Facilities Calculator results swimming pools Western Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Enter population
Cost Variations
User Profile 1
99XX
13,618
Select county
Cost scaling
6%
Buckinghamshire
Step 4
25%
Adjust Demand
20%
0%
15%
Pools
Halls
Size
202.54 sq.m.
3.81 Lanes
0.95 Pools
5.25 Courts
1.31 Halls
Cost
£2,335,405
£3,826,097
Indoor Bowls
0.32 Rinks
0.05 Centres
0.59 Pitches
£456,530 3G
£368,373 Sand
£87,981
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
0to4
5to9
10to14
15to19
20to24
25to29
30to34
35to39
40to44
45to49
50to54
55to59
60to64
65to69
70to74
75to79
80to84
85to89
90andover
Disclaimer
15%
15%
5%
10%
15%
Age band
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 40 of 98 Eastern Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Enter population
Cost Variations
User Profile 1
99XX
8,930
Cost scaling
Select county
6%
Buckinghamshire
Step 4
25%
Adjust Demand
20%
0%
15%
Pools
Halls
Size
132.82 sq.m.
2.50 Lanes
0.63 Pools
3.44 Courts
0.86 Halls
Cost
£1,531,441
£2,508,962
Indoor Bowls
0.21 Rinks
0.04 Centres
0.39 Pitches
£299,370 3G
£241,560 Sand
£57,693
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
Disclaimer
5%
73.
10%
4 9 4 9
1
to to 1
0 5 o
t o
t
0 5
1 1
4
2
o
t
0
2
9
2
o
t
5
2
4
3
o
t
0
3
9
3
o
t
5
3
4
4
o
t
0
4
9
4
o
t
5
4
4
5
o
t
0
5
9
5
o
t
5
5
15%
4
6
o
t
0
6
9
6
o
t
5
6
4
7
o
t
0
7
9
7
o
t
5
7
4
8
o
t
0
8
9
8
o
t
5
8
0%
r
e
v 5%
o
d
n
a 10%
0
9
15%
Age band
This shows that there is a demand for 203m2 water space for the WEA and 133m2 for the EEA. This equates to around the water area of a 6 lane x 25m pool (325m2). Proposed standards from 2009 strategy 74.
The Strategy proposed a provision rate of 15 sq m of total water space per 1000 population up to 2021, and 15.6 sq m per 1000 thereafter in relation to pools of 160 sq m and over in size. 75.
Public pools to be treated as strategic facilities, to attract developers’ contributions from the whole of the Borough. 76.
Private pool space should be encouraged by positive planning policies, and is expected to remain at about 30% of total water space in Milton Keynes. 77.
Design standards should meet Sport England specifications. Refresh 78.
The water space area in the previous strategy was based on an assumption that there should be a 1% pa increase in participation in swimming. This target and the associated rates of provision of water space are retained in this refresh. At the next full review of the Strategy, these standards should be reconsidered in the light of Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 41 of 98 possible changes in demand for swimming and the amount and nature of the supply of pools due to the changed economic circumstances. 79.
80.
The table below (Figure 19) sets out the future pool requirements based on the adopted standard of provision of 15.6 sq m per 1000 at 2026. The adopted standards result in two main outcomes: •
•
81.
New pool space directly linked to new growth; Additional pool space to meet the existing shortfalls in water area, and to uplift the standards of provision across the authority for the existing population. The new planned growth of Milton Keynes accounts to just under 50% of the total increase in water space required. This is the equivalent of a 25 m x 8 lane pool with teaching pool plus a 25 m x 5 lane pool. Figure 19: Swimming pool needs up to 2026 Extra population compared to 2010 (240,990) Water area Additional water space sq m required to meet the new available growth alone at strategy adopted provision of 15.6 sq m per 1000 Year Expected population of MK 2011 245,300 2405
2016 263,750 22,760 2827
2021 284,600 43,610 2827
2026 298,450 57,460 2827
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Total additional water space required at strategy adopted provision of 15.6 sq m per 1000 896 Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 1829 Page 42 of 98 Recommendations •
Retention of the adopted strategy rate with the development of the following pools in the period up to 2026, and with the current approximate percentage split provided by the commercial sector: Public pools •
a new 25 m x 8 lane pool plus teaching pool (equivalent to 625 sq m) in the central area of Milton Keynes by 2021 as a public pool; •
a new 25 x 8 lane pool plus teaching pool (equivalent to 625 sq m) either in the western or eastern expansion area of the authority, possibly linked to the proposed schools as an adjacent leisure centre facility. Commercial pools • Water space equivalent to: o a new 25 m x 8 lane pool plus teaching pool (equivalent to 625 sq m); Or o 1 x 25 m x 6 lane pool plus teaching pool (equivalent to 475 sq m) and 1 x 25m x 4 lane pool (equivalent to 213 sq m) Or o 1 x 25 m x 5 lane pool plus teaching pool (equivalent to 413 sq m) and 1 x 25m x 4 lane pool (equivalent to 213 sq m) •
Should Watling Way be closed new additional provision will be required. •
All main pools should be a minimum size of 160 sq m. •
Three of these pools will need to be in place by 2021 to meet the needs of the population by this date, if the rate of provision is at adopted strategy rate. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 43 of 98 Artificial Grass Pitches Introduction 82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
There are all three types of Artificial Grass Pitches (AGPs) (also known as Synthetic Turf Pitches or STPs) in Milton Keynes; sand based, water based, and 3G. These pitches can withstand high levels of use if they are maintained carefully, but are only really of value to the community if they are floodlit to enable evening use. Therefore for the purposes of assessment, only those pitches which are floodlit have been included. The sand‐based/sand‐filled pitches have a short pile, which is most suited to hockey, but can be used for football and non‐contact rugby training. This is the most common surface for school sites, and the longest established. There are both large size and small size sand based pitches in Milton Keynes. Water‐based pitches have a specialist hockey surface but can also be used for football and non‐contact rugby training. There are three large size water based pitches in Milton Keynes, two at Woughton‐on‐the‐Green and one at Tattenhoe. 3G pitches have a rubber‐crumb filled surface with long‐pile, and this is the preferred surface for football. There are currently no full size 3G pitches in Milton Keynes although one is now planned for the CMK area. There are however 12 small‐sided 3G pitches at Walton High School and run by a commercial small‐sided football company as a dual‐use facility. There are also two pitches at Milton Keynes Academy, but only one of these is flood‐lit. The demand for AGPs is one of the fastest growing of all sports facilities, and the national governing bodies are responding to this with ‘new’ surfaces and new competition rules. AGPs are also vital for many clubs for training, even if matches need to be played on grass. The recently published guidance from Sport England and the National Governing Bodies (‘Selecting the Right Artificial Surface’, 2010) provides more detail on the types of surface and their expected use (see Figure 20 below). AGPs are seen as a major benefit for schools, both in the public and independent sectors. Many schools have aspirations for AGPs as do the higher and further education sectors. The majority of community demand for AGP time comes from football, particularly the small sided senior game. This type of football is mostly unaffiliated and run independently from the Football Association, who consequently has difficulties in quantifying participation. For football there is a clear overlap between the small sided game played on divided up large size pitches, and the specialist small sided (usually commercial) pitch complexes. Of the two, the commercial small sided pitch complexes tend to be more attractive to players. The cost of hiring synthetic surfaces also often prohibits use by mini and junior teams. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 44 of 98 88.
89.
For rugby, good quality natural turf remains the surface of choice for both matches and training. However where there is limited space, 3G synthetic turf pitches with the appropriate length pile and shock pad offer a real opportunity to provide a quality surface upon which to play the game. With the fast changing scene in relation to the supply and demand for AGPs, the following section should be taken as a guide to future priorities. However, it should be noted that this report and the 2009 Strategy were based on the findings from a full review of AGP provision in Milton Keynes for the period 2007‐2011; this was produced in spring 2007. Where new pitches are proposed it is essential that a local supply and demand assessment is made, as the community ‘market’ for AGPs has limits, and the impact of different pitch types and sizes will also need to be taken into account. Current provision 90.
91.
There are 7 large size all weather pitches and 19 small‐sided pitches in Milton Keynes. All of these are open for community use during peak hours. They are listed below in Figure 21, and mapped in Figure 22. The only changes from the 2009 AGP list are: •
•
•
92.
the covered small‐sided pitch at Woughton‐on‐the‐Green (the dome) which now has some community use in addition to use by the MK Dons; 1 x floodlit small pitch at MK Academy; and the planned full size pitch in Central MK. The 2009 Strategy envisaged the development of an additional full size 3G pitch at Radcliffe. This has not yet been progressed but still seems likely, although now driven by the needs of the school rather than the development being part of a wider major leisure centre. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 45 of 98 Figure 20: AGP surfaces and use by sport Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 46 of 98 Figure 21: AGPs current provision in Milton Keynes Site Name Type of pitch LARGE SIZE LEON LEISURE CENTRE LORD GREY SCHOOL OUSEDALE SCHOOL (NEWPORT PAGNELL CAMPUS) STANTONBURY CAMPUS LEISURE CENTRE TATTENHOE SPORTS PAVILION WOUGHTON‐ON‐THE‐GREEN WOUGHTON‐ON‐THE‐GREEN SMALL SIZE MK Academy Shenley Brook End School Shenley Leisure Centre Walnut Tree (Powerleague) Walnut Tree (Powerleague) Whitecap Leisure, Willen Lake Woughton‐on‐the Green PROPOSALS Central Milton Keynes (planned) Access Type Width Length Management Sand Based Sand Based Pay and Play Pay and Play 63 70 100 School/College/University (in house) 100 School/College/University (in house) Sand Based Sports Club / Community Association 60 100 School/College/University (in house) Sand Based Water Based Water Based Water Based Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Pay and Play Pay and Play 60 65 60 60 100 105 98 98 3G Sand based Sand based 3G 3G Sand based 3G Sports Club / Community Association Sports Club / Community Association Pay and Play Pay and Play Pay and Play Pay and Play Sports Club / Community Association 3G Pay and Play School/College/University (in house) Trust Local Authority Local Authority 63 x 50.7 2 small sided 2 small sided 10 x 5‐a side 2 x 7‐a‐side 3 small sided 60 x 40 70 Trust Commercial Trust Commercial Commercial School/College/University (in house) Commercial 106 Trust (tbc) Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 47 of 98 Figure 22: AGPs large and small size Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 48 of 98 Proposed standards from 2009 strategy 93.
The strategy from 2008 recommended AGP rates of provision as 0.4 large size pitches per 1000 up to 2021, and 0.5 thereafter. Including the one known pitch in CMK, there would appear to still be a need for 3 new large size pitches up to 2021, and a further 4 by 2026. Sports Facilities Calculator 94.
The Sports Facilities Calculator has been used to assess the demand for AGPs in the Western and Eastern Expansion Areas. An increased demand of 15% has been added in line with the 1% per annum increase in participation that has been adopted. The results are as follows: Figure 23: Sports Facilities Calculator results AGPs Western Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Enter population
Cost Variations
User Profile 1
99XX
13,618
Cost scaling
Select county
Buckinghamshire
6%
Step 4
Adjust Demand
25%
20%
0%
15%
Pools
Halls
Indoor Bowls
Size
202.54 sq.m.
3.81 Lanes
0.95 Pools
5.25 Courts
1.31 Halls
Cost
£2,335,405
£3,826,097
0.32 Rinks
0.05 Centres
0.59 Pitches
£456,530 3G
£368,373 Sand
£87,981
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
10%
0to4
5to9
10to14
15to19
20to24
25to29
30to34
35to39
40to44
45to49
50to54
55to59
60to64
65to69
70to74
75to79
80to84
85to89
90andover
Disclaimer
15%
15%
5%
10%
15%
Age band
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 49 of 98 Eastern Expansion Area Sports Facility Calculator
Step 1
User Profile 1
99XX
Step 2
Step 3
Enter population
Cost Variations
8,930
Cost scaling
Select county
Buckinghamshire
6%
Step 4
Adjust Demand
25%
20%
0%
15%
Pools
Halls
Size
132.82 sq.m.
2.50 Lanes
0.63 Pools
3.44 Courts
0.86 Halls
Cost
£1,531,441
£2,508,962
Indoor Bowls
0.21 Rinks
0.04 Centres
0.39 Pitches
£299,370 3G
£241,560 Sand
£57,693
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
5%
95.
15%
10%
10%
0to4
5to9
10to14
15to19
20to24
25to29
30to34
35to39
40to44
45to49
50to54
55to59
60to64
65to69
70to74
75to79
80to84
85to89
90andover
Disclaimer
15%
15%
5%
10%
15%
Age band
The figure above shows a demand of 0.59 pitches for the WEA and 0.39 pitches in the EEA, this justifies these two areas as locations for new AGPs. Refresh 96.
The Artificial Grass Pitch forecast requirements in the previous strategy were based on an assumption that there should be a 1% pa increase in participation, but it also took into account the impact of the commercial small‐sided football centres. The rate of provision of AGPs is retained in this refresh. 97.
The following table (Figure 24) sets out the future requirements based on the adopted standard of provision of 0.05 pitches per 1000. 98.
The adopted standards result in two main outcomes: • A requirement for new pitch space directly linked to new growth; • Additional pitch space to meet the anticipated extra demands through increasing participation from the existing population. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 50 of 98 99.
100.
Up to 2021, 2 of the 4 new pitches expected to be needed relate directly to housing growth and by 2026 3 new pitches are required for growth, within a total of 8 which will be needed across the authority. If a further multi‐pitch small‐sided football complex is developed, it should be assumed that 3 small‐sided pitches will equate to one large size pitch, and therefore there will be a need to reduce the total number of large size pitches required. Figure 24: AGP forecast of needs Year Expected Extra population population of MK compared to 2010 (240,990) Current number of large size AGPs Additional large size pitches required to meet the new growth alone at strategy adopted provision of 0.05 pitches per 1000 Total additional large size pitches required at strategy adopted provision of 0.05 pitches per 1000 2011 245,300 7 2016 263,750 22,760 7 2021 284,600 43,610 7 2026 298,450 57,460 7 3 8 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 51 of 98 Recommendations •
There are a number of alternative sites and locations that could potentially meet the anticipated increases in demand. With the adopted rates of provision maintained, the following options should be actively explored in relation to new provision. •
Potential sites: o
o
o
o
CMK – full size 3G AGP (location TBC) Radcliffe – full size AGP Secondary School in WEA – full size AGP Secondary School in EEA – full size AGP •
The remaining demand may be met through a combination of: o Increased use of the existing facilities, in particular longer opening hours on school sites; o Commercial sector small‐sided football provision, particularly if this is in multi‐pitch venue(s) (at a conversion rate of one large size pitch = 3 small‐sided); o The development of new large size pitch(es), particularly linked to school sites. •
The detail and phasing of these development options will depend upon a number of factors, but the CMK facility is expected to be developed during 2011‐12; •
When pitches are due for resurfacing, the nature of the new carpet will need to be carefully considered as the change from one surface to another will have major impacts on the community’s (and school’s if appropriate) usage, not least in relation to which sports can be provided for. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 52 of 98 Parks and open spaces 101.
Parks and open spaces are becoming increasingly important as venues for informal sport and physical activity, for formal sport (especially grass pitch based) and events. Demand for sport and physical activity 102.
103.
The Sport England Active People Survey demonstrates that cycling and swimming are the most popular sports at national level and that recreational walking is also popular. Figure 25 below shows the results from the recent Sport England Active People Survey and indicates clearly that cycling and swimming are the most popular sports amongst those who participate in physical activity once a month. Athletics includes jogging and road running, in addition to the “sport” of athletics based on and around athletics tracks. Figure 25: Most popular sports in England (Sport England Active People Survey 3) 104.
In Jan 2008 a household survey was conducted as part of the work for the Sport and Leisure Strategy. The findings indicated clearly that walking, running and cycling routes were well used and highly valued by the population of MK. 80% of respondents said someone in the household used leisure/sporting facilities, and that the results showed that use of the traffic free routes and redways are almost as important as swimming pools, and more important than gym/fitness facilities: •
•
50% of all households use swimming pool; 48% use walking/running routes which are traffic free; Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 53 of 98 •
•
105.
106.
45% use Redways for cycling; 34% use gym/fitness facilities. Figure 26 shows in more detail the type of facilities used by respondents to the household survey, and indicates clearly that swimming pools and walking and cycling routes are by far the most commonly used facilities. NB this was a multiple choice question and therefore totals exceed 100%. The results of the household survey in 2008 are still valid for the Refresh as they are unlikely to have changed significantly. If anything, the balance is likely to be in favour of walking/running routes and cycling on the Redways as participation patterns shift towards cheaper leisure activities, and also cheaper methods of commuting to work. Figure 26: Total sample – facilities used by households in Milton Keynes Swimming Pool
49.7
Walking/running routes (traffic free)
48.4
Cycling Redways
44.6
Gym / fitness facilities
33.8
Sports Halls (at leisure centre or school)
21.7
Village Halls/Community Centres (used for sport and active recreation)
21.5
No sporting or leisure facilities used by the household
19.9
Golf course / range
19.8
Snowzone / Xscape
16.7
Grass pitches
15.9
Synthetic / all weather pitches
12.7
Outdoor hard courts / Multi-use games area
7.8
Skating rink
6.6
Indoor bowls
4.7
Other facilities frequently used not named above
3.8
Athletics facilities
3.6
Indoor tennis
3
Specialist Cycling facilities
2.6
Skate parks
2.5
Outdoor bowls
2.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
Percentage
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 54 of 98 The providers 107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
Milton Keynes has an extensive network of parks, green spaces and traffic free cycle routes, and horse riding routes. The green spaces are managed by both MKPT and MKC, but the parks are managed by the Milton Keynes Parks Trust whose vision is of “an inspirational environment valued by local people, admired by visitors and managed by a Trust that plays a key role in the success of MK which sets the standard for other towns and cities to follow.” The Trust works on a number of levels to increase participation in formal and informal recreation. It funds a physical activity officer post whose role includes organising “health walks”, “cycle to work” schemes and “return to sport” programmes. At an operational level the Trust works closely with MKC officers (cycling in particular), but at a strategic level there are still opportunities to develop a more “joined up” approach. For example there is an opportunity for greater linking of the traffic‐free routes to provide a comprehensively mapped, integrated strategic network across the whole City. The Redways are a key resource which is, at present, managed by MKC. These traffic free routes can be used cycling, walking and jogging. These should be maintained to a high standard and where possible additional resources allocated to increasing their use. In 2012 MK plans to hold a marathon on the Redways and this is cited as one of the key events in the emerging International Sporting City concept. The Trust also works in conjunction with the commercial sector for example by facilitating the development of the new tennis centre at Mount Farm Lakes and by hosting mass participation events such as triathlons and fun runs. Since the Sport and Leisure Strategy was published in 2009 there have been a number of changes which have, or will have, an impact upon management and use of the Green Estate. These include: •
The relocation of MK Rugby Club to Emerson Valley. This may give an opportunity to provide Wolverton Football Club with a new home and possibly to develop some land should it be identified as being surplus to requirements in the Playing Pitch refresh; •
The proposed intensification of the use of Campbell Park for Twenty20 cricket; •
The development of the International Sporting City concept which high lights the importance of open spaces for informal recreation and for major events both at elite level and for mass participation; Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 55 of 98 •
The Playing Pitch Strategy refresh highlights the reduction in the requirement for playing pitches in some areas of the City. In this case opportunities should be taken to remove single pitch sites or sites in parks as these have limited value in sporting terms and to focus resources on providing high quality multi pitch sites. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 56 of 98 PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY Introduction 112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
The Sport and Leisure Strategy playing pitch section focused on the grass playing field needs of the community, and forecasted the land areas required at 2011, 2016, 2021, and 2026. It is essential that the necessary provision of grass playing fields is identified in the planning process at a very early stage because of the amount of space required, and the need to site the playing fields in appropriate locations – both in terms of their accessibility to the community they are meant to serve, and in relation to the physical characteristics of the land on which they should be sited. The assessment of playing field space was based on the standardised Sport England methodology of Team Generation Rates (TGRs), and there was additional forecasting to take account of increases in both the population and participation rates across the sports of football, cricket and rugby. Gaelic football, baseball, softball and American football were also addressed. In relation to the pitch space used in the assessment, all sites which were planned to come into use by 2011 were assumed to be already available, and it primarily considered the availability of pitches in secure community use. This is defined as being those pitches which are either owned (and usually managed) by the local authority or the parish councils, or are club sites. School pitches are only considered as being in ‘secure’ community use if there is a long term legal agreement ensuring public access. There are a number of other pitches for each of the sports either in private use or which are school pitches with no secure community use. The assessments considered the requirements of football, cricket and rugby separately, although the final standard for playing field provision combined each sport’s needs. It is still important to treat each sport separately because it is now very difficult for cricket to share the same pitch areas as the ‘winter’ sports of football and rugby due to substantial overlaps in their seasons, and the high quality pitch surface required for club cricket. There are a few remaining sites in Milton Keynes where football and cricket share space, but several of these are in villages, or village areas that are now part of the City. The Strategy uses the same sub‐areas as for the rest of the Sport and Leisure Strategy, as illustrated in Figure 27. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 57 of 98 Figure 27: Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Strategy Sub Areas Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 58 of 98 Football Current provision 117.
118.
119.
This assessment relates to the provision of grass football pitches, as the provision of artificial grass pitches has already been addressed within the report. The assessment is based on the size of the pitches required for the different age groups. This approach has been standardised by Sport England to enable comparisons between different areas across the country. The ‘minis’ age‐group is u10, although recognising that there are slightly different pitch sizes for each age group below this. The juniors are the u11‐u16 age groups, and seniors are 16+ years. The total number of pitches in secure community use and used by the community is: 26 separately marked mini pitches, 31 junior pitches, and 72 senior pitches. Of the sites with ‘secure’ community use, there are 8 multi‐pitch sites which have at least one pitch of each size, i.e. one senior, one junior and one mini. Some of these have a number of pitches in each category and are the most important resource for the sport as they provide scope for all ages and abilities, are easiest (and most cost effective) to manage, justify changing provision, and provide the greatest flexibility for future changes in the sport. This type of facility also meets the needs of the Football Association (FA) and the expectations of Charter Standard clubs. Figure 28: Multipitch sites with secure community use Site Name Ancell Trust Sports Ground Conniburrow Playing Field & Pavilion Derwent Drive Bletchley Youth Centre, Bletchley Downs Barn Field & Pavilion Monkston Sports Ground & Pavilion The Radcliffe Secondary School Willen Rd Sports Ground/Newport Pagnell Turn Kents Hill North Furzton Sub Area
WMK NMK SO NMK CMK WMK RE CMK WMK No Senior Football 3 1 No Junior Football 1 1 No Mini Football 1 2 2 1 1 4 5 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 59 of 98 120.
121.
Woughton on the Green was not recognised in the 2009 Strategy as it only had senior pitches. It now has a range of pitch sizes but is almost solely used by the MK Dons as their training base, with only one pitch being available for community use. The future of MK Dons use at this site is, however, currently under review. Of the total number of senior pitch sites, there were and still are 10 single pitch sites, 3 of which are in village locations. These single pitch sites are often important for informal recreation, whilst providing a training and match venue for local teams. However, they tend to be the most expensive to manage, and problems can arise where football and cricket pitches overlap. Figure 29: Single pitch sites with secure community use Site Name Bradwell Sports Ground Castlethorpe Recn & Sports Centre Fishermead Sports Ground & Social Club Kiln Farm Sports Ground Lavendon Playing Field Loughton Sports & Social Club Mount Farm Playing Field New Bradwell Sports Club Oldbrook Playing Field Perry Lane Recreation Ground Sub Area NMK RW CMK WMK RE WMK SO NMK CMK RE No No Senior Junior No Mini No Football Football Football Cricket 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 60 of 98 Current demand 122.
123.
The current number of teams playing football on grass in Milton Keynes has been provided by the FA, which also identified the home grounds for each club. The team numbers are used as the starting point for the forecasting of future need. The calculation is based on the Team Generation Rate i.e. the number of teams which are playing in each age group per 1000. Forecasting is achieved by looking at the changes in the number of people in each age group at different dates, based on the demographic forecasts provided by MK Intelligence. A factor of 1% is then added to the TGR rate for each year, to model the hoped‐for increases in participation in the sport. A comparison has been made between the actual team numbers in 2007/08 and 2010, and those that were estimated to be generated by 2011 using the Team Generation Rate methodology in the 2009 Strategy. Figure 30: Comparison between Team numbers actual and estimated 2007/08 actual teams 2010 actual teams 2011 (TGR estimate from 2009 Strategy) 124.
Mini (6‐9 years) 227 112 Junior football ‐ (10‐15 years) 179 197 Men's and women's football (16+ years) 113 126 271 184 119 Comparing the Team Generation Rates gives an even better feel for the change in the sport. These are given below in Figure 31. Figure 31: Team Generation Rates compared Age Groups Mini‐soccer (U7‐U10s) ‐ mixed Youth football ‐ boys Youth football ‐ girls Men's football Women's football 6‐9yrs 10‐15yrs 10‐15yrs 16‐45yrs 16‐45yrs Teams Teams Teams generated generated per generated per per 1000 pop 1000 pop in 1000 pop 2010 2002/03 2007/08 15.37 9.52 8.99 19.78 15.09 18.17 2.49 0.58 1.78 2.39 2.29 2.16 0.10 0.07 0.08 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 61 of 98 125.
These findings suggests that: •
There has been continued growth in the junior game and in the adult game, both men and women, higher than the 1% growth anticipated in the 2009 Strategy; •
The increase in the male adult game is particularly notable as it reverses the trend shown from 2003 to 2008, when there was a fall in the participation rate; •
The rate of participation for minis is falling, even between 2007/08 and 2010, and is well below that of 2002/03. 126.
127.
For the purposes of the Playing Pitch assessment in 2009, the Team Generation Rate for mini football was increased to bring it in line with what was expected, rather than the lower number identified by the FA. However, the 2010 mini team number is similar to the number recorded in 2008 by the FA. It is therefore suggested that the lower mini numbers are used for future forecasts. This has some impact on the number of pitches estimated as being needed for this age group. There is however limited impact on the total demand for pitch space for football, as it is balanced out by the other increases. The current total pitch area for football in Milton Keynes on sites with secure community use is 110 ha. With an estimate of 150% of the pitch area equating to the total area of playing fields used for football, this gives a total of 165 ha of playing fields across the authority used for football (this includes pitch areas within the parks, and single pitch sites). Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 62 of 98 Assessment Whole authority 128.
129.
The future demand and supply for football pitches has been based on Sport England’s TGR methodology, but also allows for a 1% growth in participation of the game. Taking into account the changes anticipated in Milton Keynes’ population up to 2026, the following table provides the anticipated number of football teams over the period for the authority as a whole based on the team numbers for 2010. The total demand for pitch space for football is lower than predicted in the 2009 Strategy because the estimated population is now 25,300 people less than was originally estimated. Figure 32: Estimated football team numbers to 2026 Males & Females Year 2010 2016 2021 2026 130.
131.
132.
No teams Snr Jnr Mini 126 197 112 133 209 119 140 218 124 146 229 130 Home matches Snr Jnr Mini 63 99 56 67 105 60 70 109 62 73 115 65 Peak time demand = no. pitches req’d matches Snr Jnr Mini 38 49 18 40 52 20 42 55 20 44 57 21 % matches @ peak time Snr Jnr Mini 60% 50% 33% 60% 50% 33% 60% 50% 33% 60% 50% 33% The next step is to re‐run the analysis which compares the balance in supply and demand over time. At present there is much more senior pitch space than appears to be needed, and with the change in mini team numbers, also too much mini pitch space. There is however a lack of pitch provision for juniors. These trends continue though to 2026, where the number of senior and mini pitches is still greater than the demand, however there is an increasing deficit of junior pitches. It should be remembered that the number of senior pitches includes the 10 single pitch sites, some of which are in the rural areas. Even if these sites were discounted from the senior pitch figure (reducing it to say 68 pitches), this would still result in surplus capacity of 14 senior pitches by 2026. In comparison to the 2009 Strategy, the anticipated demand by 2026 for football is now less and, overall across the authority there is still a surplus of playing field space by 2026, compared to the 2009 Strategy which suggested that additional playing field space would be required by this date. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 63 of 98 Figure 33: Provision of football pitches with secure community use in MK 2010
MALES + FEMALES
Age
group
u10
10-15
16+
Pitch
Mini
Junior
Senior
Hectares
- Max
size with
safety
margins
0.3
0.5
1.2
Current
number
of
pitches
26
31
72
Total
number of
pitches
required for
matches
18
49
38
Additional
'spare
capacity' for
training,
pitch
maintenance
etc (no.
pitches)
@10% of
pitch stock
3
3
7
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
PITCHES
REQUIRED
IN 2007/08
21
52
45
Area for
football
required
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
Area for
football
(pitches
only reqd
for
matches)
Hectares
6.3
26.2
54.0
86.5
129.7
Current
total
area of
pitches
(ha)
7.8
15.5
86.4
109.7
Current
total area
for
football
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
164.6
Additional
playing
field area
required
to meet
demand
(hectares)
-34.8
2016
MALES + FEMALES
Age
group
u10
10-15
16+
Pitch
Mini
Junior
Senior
Hectares
- Max
size with
safety
margins
0.3
0.5
1.2
Current
number
of
pitches
26
31
72
Total
number of
pitches
required for
matches
20
52
40
Additional
'spare
capacity' for
training,
pitch
maintenance
etc (no.
pitches)
@10% of
pitch stock
2
5
4
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
PITCHES
REQUIRED
22
57
44
Area for
football
required
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
Area for
football
(pitches
only reqd
for
matches)
Hectares
6.5
28.7
52.7
87.9
131.8
Current
area of
pitches
(ha)
7.8
15.5
86.4
109.7
Current
total area
for
football
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
164.55
Additional
playing
field area
required
to meet
demand
(hectares)
-32.7
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 64 of 98 2021
MALES + FEMALES
Age
group
u10
10-15
16+
Pitch
Mini
Junior
Senior
Hectares
- Max
size with
safety
margins
0.3
0.5
1.2
Current
number
of
pitches
26
31
72
Total
number of
pitches
required for
matches
20
55
42
Additional
'spare
capacity' for
training,
pitch
maintenance
etc (no.
pitches)
@10% of
pitch stock
2
5
4
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
PITCHES
REQUIRED
23
60
46
Area for
football
required
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
Area for
football
(pitches
only reqd
for
matches)
Hectares
6.8
30.0
55.4
92.2
138.3
Current
area of
pitches
(ha)
7.8
15.5
86.4
109.7
Current
total area
for
football
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
164.55
Additional
playing
field area
required
to meet
demand
(hectares)
-26.3
2026
MALES + FEMALES
Age
group
u10
10-15
16+
Pitch
Mini
Junior
Senior
Hectares
- Max
size with
safety
margins
0.3
0.5
1.2
Current
number
of
pitches
26
31
72
Total
number of
pitches
required for
matches
21
57
44
Additional
'spare
capacity' for
training,
pitch
maintenance
etc (no.
pitches)
@10% of
pitch stock
2
6
4
TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
PITCHES
REQUIRED
24
63
48
Area for
football
required
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
Area for
football
(pitches
only reqd
for
matches)
Hectares
7.1
31.5
57.8
96.4
144.6
Current
area of
pitches
(ha)
7.8
15.5
86.4
109.7
Current
total area
for
football
including
ancillary
(150% of
pitch
area)
164.55
Additional
playing
field area
required
to meet
demand
(hectares)
-20.0
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 65 of 98 Summary 133.
The table below summarises the above assessments for the authority as a whole. Again, it should be noted that this includes the 10 single pitch sites which have the least value to the community, the total site area of which is approximately 18 ha. If this figure is then discounted from the totals above, this still leaves a balance of playing field space for football across the authority by 2026. Figure 34: Summary of pitch requirements to 2026 Mini balance Junior balance Senior balance Year (pitches) (pitches) (pitches) 2010 2016 2021 2026 5 4 3 2 ‐21 ‐26 ‐29 ‐32 27 28 26 24 “Surplus” playing field space, excluding single pitch sites “Surplus” playing (18 ha) field area (hectares) ‐34.8 ‐32.7 ‐26.3 ‐20.0 16.8 14.7 8.3 2 134.
The main reason behind the substantial decrease in the amount of playing field space required up to 2026 compared to that forecast in the 2026 Strategy for football is the reduction in the total planned population, and the fewer number of young families being planned to be accommodated in the City. This has effectively turned a shortage of playing field space after 2021 into a surplus, which will now remain beyond 2026 (Figure 35 compares these findings). The demographics of the City also mean that the newly estimated population at 2026 is, on balance, older than that anticipated in the demographics used in the 2009 Strategy. In turn this has a slight impact upon the provision standard per 1000. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 66 of 98 Figure 35: 2009 Strategy and 2010 Refresh compared Age group
2010
u10
10‐15
16+
Pitch
Hectares ‐ Max size with safety margins
Mini
Junior
Senior
0.3
0.5
1.2
TOTAL NUMBER OF PITCHES REQUIRED Current number of (match + training)
pitches
26
31
72
2010 REFRESH Hectares for football required Additional including playing field pitches and area required ancillary to meet (150% of pitch demand area)
(hectares) 22
53
46
49
51
39
131
2016
u10
10‐15
16+
Mini
Junior
Senior
0.3
0.5
1.2
26
31
72
Mini
Junior
Senior
0.3
0.5
1.2
26
31
72
Mini
Junior
Senior
0.3
0.5
1.2
26
31
72
‐33
23
60
46
‐50
144
‐38
171
‐10
191
10
67
72
48
‐26
24
63
48
74
81
53
145
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd 131
59
57
41
138
2026
u10
10‐15
16+
35
22
57
44
132
2021
u10
10‐15
16+
2009 STRATEGY Hectares for football Additional required TOTAL playing field NUMBER OF including pitches and area required PITCHES ancillary REQUIRED to meet (150% of pitch demand (match + area)
training)
(hectares) Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 ‐20
Page 67 of 98 135.
The following table turns the football space requirements into a standard per 1,000 population. Figure 36: Football requirements provision per 1,000 population 2010 2016 2021 2026 Total population across authority 236,580 263,750 284,600 298,450 Total area of playing field space for football needed (hectares) 131.4 131.8 138.3 144.6 Provision per 1,000 population football 0.56 0.50 0.49 0.48 136.
137.
138.
139.
The adopted Strategy rates are 0.57 ha per 1,000 for football playing fields for new development up to 2021, and a standard of 0.59 after this date. With the now older population this results in a reducing rate of provision per 1000 rather than an increasing one. For simplicity and to accommodate a potentially increasing rate of participation in football beyond the 1% per annum already catered for, it is proposed to apply a new standard of provision rate per 1,000 at 0.5 ha for football. This should apply to all new developments. In theory there is sufficient playing pitch space in the pipeline up to 2026 to cater for the needs of Milton Keynes as a whole. However, the sites are not distributed in a way which meets the needs of the whole population. The next step is therefore to consider the implications of the changing demand over time on each of the authority’s sub‐areas. The full review of the Strategy at 2013 will need to utilise quinary age information for each of the authority sub‐areas. However this level of information has not been available for the Refresh and therefore the provision within each sub‐area is based on a whole authority playing field standard and the estimated population within each sub‐
area. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 68 of 98 Figure 37: Estimated balance in supply and demand by subarea Estimated population Sub Area Central East North Rural East Rural West South West 2011 45214 15058 56278 28434 2016 47853 18510 58019 27971 2021 51187 25603 59484 26943 2026
56517
34149
60667
27475
Total Hectares required based Balance between supply hectares on provision rate of 0.5 ha and demand ‐ total field Current provision (number of pitches) of playing per 1000 space field space Mini Junior Senior available 2010 2016 2021 2026 2010 2016 2021 2026
3 6 11 25.7 23 24
26
28
3.1
1.8
0.1 ‐2.6
0 4 8 17.4 8 9
13
17
9.9
8.1
4.6
0.3
3 4 10 22.4 28 29
30
30 ‐5.7 ‐6.6 ‐7.3 ‐7.9
5 2 11 23.6 14 14
13
14
9.3
9.6 10.1
9.8
4250 4206 4051 4131
38673 40638 42776 44052
53582 60581 66644 71459
0 5 10 0 3 12 1 10 21 1.8 22.5 51.3 2 19 27 2
20
30
2
21
33
2
22
36
‐0.3
3.2
24.5
‐0.3
2.2
21.0
‐0.2
1.1
18.0
‐0.3
0.5
15.6
N.B. The totals for the sub‐area analysis at each year does not match the grand total for the authority as a whole to due rounding, and also the application of the generic standard of 0.5 ha per 1,000 population. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 69 of 98 Findings and comparison to the 2009 Strategy 140.
The following table summarises the key findings and compares these to the 2009 Strategy. Figure 38: Football Key findings compared with 2009 Strategy Central There is currently a small surplus of pitch capacity, but by 2021 there will be a balance in supply and demand, and this will turn into a deficit by 2026. However this assumes that only one senior pitch is available at Woughton‐on‐the‐Green during the period. There will be a need to revisit the balance in supply of pitches, reducing the number of senior pitches in favour of juniors and some additional mini provision. The 2009 Strategy suggested that additional pitch space would be needed in this area after 2021, and this remains the case unless MK Dons re‐locate and Woughton‐on‐the‐Green comes back into community use. East There is surplus pitch space now, but this will be in balance with need by 2026. There will be a need to revisit the balance in supply of pitches, reducing the number of senior pitches in favour of juniors. There is no change from the 2009 Strategy for this sub‐area. North There is a lack of playing field space now of around 6 ha and this position will worsen up to 2026, bringing the deficit close to 8 ha. There is a lack of both junior and mini pitches, but the junior provision is more pressing. The number of senior pitches approximately matches demand. The 2009 Strategy forecast a much more substantial deficit for this sub‐area. Rural There is surplus provision in this area of around 9‐10 ha, primarily due to the large East number of senior pitches. There is a lack of junior provision, but mini provision matches demand. There is effectively no change from the 2009 Strategy for this area. Rural There is only one pitch in the sub‐area but also limited demand. There is a need West for some more junior and mini provision, but only 1‐2 pitches in total. There is effectively no difference between the 2009 Strategy and the refresh. South There is an approximate balance in supply and demand up to 2026. However there is a significant lack of junior provision and potentially some need for additional mini pitches. Some pitch re‐marking would therefore be appropriate. The 2009 Strategy envisaged there being a need for additional pitch space after 2021, but the new assessment suggests that additional pitch space is not essential. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 70 of 98 West 141.
The above findings suggest that: •
•
•
•
•
•
142.
There is a significant surplus in pitch space now and this will remain the case through to 2026. However, almost all of the surplus is due to senior pitches and there should be some re‐marking of pitches to provide additional junior provision. The 2009 Strategy also estimated that there would be a significant surplus in this area. The scale of this surplus provision has changed little in this Refresh, with around 3 ha difference by 2026. Overall there is more than sufficient playing field space for football up to 2026, with a total surplus of playing field provision for football by 2026 of around 36 ha; The provision is unevenly spread across the Borough; Additional provision is still needed in the North sub‐area; The Central, East, and South sub‐areas are approximately balanced in their supply and demand by 2026, although there is some surplus currently; A review of provision should be considered for the West sub‐area with a potential objective of focusing on high quality multi‐pitch sites, and potentially considering other uses for the smaller, low quality pitches, or pitches within the parks; Changes are required to address the lack of junior pitch space in all areas. The first priority for additional football playing field space is in the north area of Milton Keynes, but it may be difficult to provide a sufficiently large site within the area to meet the need. It seems likely therefore that at least some of the demand will be met via clubs travelling to play in the West. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 71 of 98 Proposals and recommendations •
A standard is proposed of 0.5 ha per 1,000 for football playing fields for new development; •
Provision should be within 1.2 km (equates to 15 minutes walk) of new housing developments of over 10 dwellings (based on current threshold from SPG on Planning Obligations for Leisure, Recreation and Sports Facilities); •
Single pitch sites in village locations should be retained as pitches. The following statements are supplemented by general guidance for future provision, given at the end of the Playing Pitch strategy section: •
o The priorities for future investment are for a new multi‐pitch site in the North, and improvements to the quality of pitches and ancillary facilities elsewhere; o The playing field provision in the West should be reviewed to reduce the total amount of provision here and to concentrate resources on the best and most flexible sites which can cater for a number of teams at different age groups. If redevelopment is acceptable then surplus funds should be used to improve playing field sites elsewhere in the City. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 72 of 98 Cricket Current provision 143.
There are currently 39 cricket pitches in Milton Keynes, of which 32 are in secure community use. The majority of sites are shared with football. Current demand 144.
There are currently 73 adult men’s teams, two women’s team, and 14 boy’s teams playing across Milton Keynes. A comparison has been made with the 2008 team numbers in the table below. Figure 39: Cricket team numbers compared Junior cricket ‐ Junior cricket ‐ boys girls 2008 actual teams 2010 actual teams 2011 (estimate from 2009 Strategy TGR rate) 145.
146.
Men’s cricket Women’s cricket 11‐17yrs 35 14 11‐17yrs 0 0 18‐55yrs 67 73 18‐55yrs 1 2 36 0 74 1 The 2009 Strategy estimated the number of teams which would be expected in 2011 based on the TGR rates. The number of adult teams which played in 2010 is close to the figures expected, but there is a slight increase in the number of women’s teams. There is also a notable fall in the number of junior teams recorded. This may be due to the way in which clubs record (or do not record) their junior teams and their results on the ECB Play Cricket website, which is now the most comprehensive listing available. Comparison of the Team Generation Rates below from 2003, 2008 and 2010 suggest that both men’s and women’s cricket participation is growing, but that the juniors are not matching this increase. There is a fall in both the boys and girls cricket TGR rates. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 73 of 98 Figure 40: Junior cricket ‐ boys Junior cricket ‐ girls Men’s cricket Women’s cricket Cricket Team Generation Rates compared Age Groups Teams generated per 1000 pop in 2002/03 Teams generated per 1000 pop 2008 Teams generated per 1000 pop in 2010 11‐17yrs 2.10 3.36 1.35 11‐17yrs 0.20 0.00 0.00 18‐55yrs 0.58 1.06 1.14 18‐55yrs 0.02 0.02 0.03 Assessment 147.
The future demand and supply for cricket pitches has been based on Sport England’s TGR methodology, but also allows for a 1% growth in participation per annum in the game. Taking into account the changes anticipated in Milton Keynes’ population up to 2026, the following table provides the anticipated number of cricket teams over the period for the authority as a whole based on the 2010 actual team numbers. Figure 41: Estimated cricket team numbers to 2026 Junior cricket ‐ boys Junior cricket ‐ girls Men’s cricket Women’s cricket 11‐17yrs 11‐17yrs 18‐55yrs 18‐55yrs 14 0 73 2 15 16 16 0 0 0 77 81 85 2 2 2 2010 (actual number) 2016 2021 2026 148.
The reduction in the total new population now projected results in a substantial fall in the projected number of senior teams and therefore the amount of pitch space which will be required. The reduction, compared with the 2009 Strategy estimate is approximately in the order of 17 teams, or around 4 cricket pitches. The fall in the number of junior teams has less of an impact because the juniors are increasingly playing at off peak times, to maximise the use of the available pitches. If the Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 74 of 98 assessment is now done on the basis of 4 senior teams per cricket pitch i.e. 2 home games per week, and it is assumed that the juniors fit around the senior teams, the new assessment demonstrates that there is some surplus of pitches at present, and this will continue to be the case up to 2026. 149.
However a number of the pitches are not of the highest quality because they share the outfield with football or rugby, or are within a park or recreation ground with informal access. Figure 42: Cricket team supply and demand balance to 2026 – whole authority Cricket teams
16
0
81
2
2026
16
0
85
2
150.
2026
2021
2016
2010
32
2026
22
2021
21
2016
19 20
‐13 ‐12 ‐11 22 24 25 26
2026
2021
2021
2
2016
77
2010
0
2026
15
2021
2016
2016
11‐17yrs 11‐17yrs 18‐55yrs 18‐55yrs
14
0
73
2
2010
2010
Junior Junior cricket ‐ cricket ‐ boys
girls
Additional Number of Number of pitches Additional pitches needed @ pitches pitches needed @ required 4 senior teams Number of Men’s Women’s pitches in required 4 teams per pitch (total number per pitch cricket
cricket
of teams) 2010
(seniors only) all age groups (rounded)
‐8
‐7
‐6
The following table turns this into a provision standard per 1,000 population. Figure 43: Cricket requirements provision per 1,000 population Total population across authority Number of cricket pitches required (authority wide) Total pitch area required @ 2 ha per pitch Total area of playing field space for cricket to be provided (hectares) (pitch area *150%) Provision per 1000 population for cricket 151.
152.
2016 263750 2021 284600 2026 298450 19 38 20 40 21 42 22 44 56 0.24 60 0.23 62 0.22 65 0.22 The new proposed rate of provision of 0.2 ha per 1,000 is less than the adopted Strategy standard of 0.36 ha per 1,000. The full review of the Strategy at 2013 will need to utilise the quinary age information for each of the authority sub‐areas. However this level of information has not been available for the Refresh and therefore the provision within each sub‐area is necessarily Nortoft Partnerships Ltd 2010 236580 Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 75 of 98 based on a whole authority playing field standard and the estimated population within each sub‐area. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 76 of 98 Figure 44: Cricket estimated balance in supply and demand by subarea 2016 2021 2026 2010 2016 2021 2026 56,517
34,149
60,667
27,475
4,131
44,052
71,459
2010 51,187 25,603 59,484 26,943 4,051 42,776 66,644 2026 2026 47,853 18,510 58,019 27,971 4,206 40,638 60,581 2021 2021 45,214 15,058 56,278 28,434 4,250 38,673 53,582 Total Current hectares provision of playing (number of field space pitches) available 8 24 3 9 5 15 4 12 1 3 2 6 10 30 Balance between Balance between supply and demand supply and demand ‐ total pitch space ‐ total pitch space (number of pitches) 2016 2016 Sub Area Central East North Rural East Rural West South West 2011 Estimated population Hectares required based on provision rate of 0.2 ha per 1000 2010 9
3
11
6
1
8
11
10 4 12 6 1 8 12 10 5 12 5 1 9 13 11
7
12
5
1
9
14
15
6
4
6
2
‐2
19
14
5
3
6
2
‐2
18
14
4
3
7
2
‐3
17
13
2
3
7
2
‐3
16
5
2
1
2
1
‐1
6
5
2
1
2
1
‐1
6
5
1
1
2
1
‐1
6
4
1
1
2
1
‐1
5
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 77 of 98 Findings and comparison to the 2009 Strategy 153.
The following table summarises the key findings and compares these to the 2009 Strategy. Figure 45: Cricket Key findings compared with 2009 Strategy Central There is currently a surplus of five pitches and by 2026 there will still be a surplus of 4 pitches. Most of the existing pitches are on shared sites with football which causes concern in relation to quality, and one site is in Campbell Park. The 2009 Strategy identified that some additional provision may be needed after 2021, but this is no longer the case. East There is small surplus of provision (2 pitches now, reducing to 1 by 2026), so the area’s demand will be reasonably in balance with the supply of pitches. Need to retain the existing provision and improve as needed. The 2009 Strategy identified that some additional provision may be needed after 2026, but this is no longer the case. North There is a slight surplus of provision (1 pitch) now and this will remain the case up to 2026. The 2009 Strategy recommended the development of one additional pitch. This is no longer a requirement and funding should be focused on improving the quality of the existing facilities. Rural There is surplus provision in this area of 2 pitches. Given the rural nature of East the area, no changes are proposed. There is no change from the 2009 Strategy for this area. Rural There is surplus provision in this area of 1 pitch. Given the rural nature of the West area, no changes are proposed. There is no change from the 2009 Strategy for this area. South There is a need for an additional pitch in this sub‐area now, and this remains the case up to 2026. There is no change from the 2009 Strategy for this area. West There is a significant surplus in pitch space now (6 pitches) and this will remain the case through to 2026, where the surplus is still 5 pitches. The 2009 Strategy also estimated that there would be a surplus in this area, and it proposed the delay of further planned pitches. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 78 of 98 Proposals and recommendations •
A standard is proposed of 0.2 ha per 1000 for cricket playing fields for new development; •
Sites to be within 1.6 km of the centre of new development; •
In the period up to 2016 ‐ Seek to develop one community cricket pitch in the South area; •
Support Sports Development initiatives to encourage stronger club development; •
Review the balance in supply and demand by 2013 in order to confirm site provision; •
In the West and Central areas consider refocusing cricket use on to pitches which have the best opportunity for high quality provision (both pitch and ancillary facilities), in particular reducing the overlap with winter sports, and focus investment on improving quality. If sites are redeveloped for other uses, the funding raised should be used to improve other playing field sites; •
In other areas direct any funding available towards improving the quality of the existing facilities; North, Rural East. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 79 of 98 Rugby Current provision 154.
According to the RFU records, the facilities at the three club sites are: •
•
•
MKRFC current site at Greenleys has 3 senior pitches plus a mini pitch, but the club is moving to Emerson Valley in January 2011 and this will provide 4 large pitches (1 floodlit) and a 6 changing room clubhouse; Olney RFC has access to 5 pitches and 6 changing rooms. Three of the pitches are owned freehold and the clubhouse is leasehold; Bletchley RFC has access to 4 pitches (2 floodlit) and 8 changing rooms within the main clubhouse and pavilion buildings. There is a 40 year lease on the clubhouse and grounds and the club will be starting work in 2011 on a clubhouse extension which will include 2 refurbished changing rooms and social facilities. The club shares its facilities with a cricket club and Milton Keynes College use the facilities during the week for teams and training. Current and future demand 155.
There are currently 15 men’s teams, 2 women’s teams and 10 junior teams at the three clubs within the authority. A comparison between the team numbers in 2008 and those estimated at 2011 is given below. The adult game and mini team figures have grown slightly faster than the 1% pa growth anticipated in the 2009 Strategy. The junior game is in line with what was expected. Figure 46: Rugby team numbers compared Mini‐
rugby ‐ mixed 2007/08 actual teams 2010 actual teams 2011 (estimate from 2009 Strategy TGR rate) 156.
Junior rugby ‐ girls 13‐
17yrs 2 0 16 10 2 Men’s rugby 18‐
45yrs 11 15 12 Women’s rugby 18‐45yrs 2 2 2 The team generation rates compared for 2008 and 2010 also demonstrate that there has been a slightly higher than anticipated growth in the game, above the 1% pa. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd U 12yrs 15 18 Junior rugby ‐ boys 13‐
17yrs 10 10 Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 80 of 98 Figure 47: Mini‐rugby ‐ mixed Junior rugby ‐ boys Junior rugby ‐ girls Men’s rugby Women’s rugby Rugby Team Generation Rates compared Age Groups 8‐12yrs 13‐17yrs 13‐17yrs 18‐45yrs 18‐45yrs Teams generated per 1000 Teams generated per 1000 population in 2008 population in 2010 1.02 1.19 1.35 1.35 0.19 0.00 0.23 0.31 0.04 0.04 Assessment 157.
The future demand and supply for rugby pitches has been based on Sport England’s TGR methodology, but still allows for a 1% growth in participation in the game. Taking into account the changes anticipated in Milton Keynes’ population up to 2026, the following table provides the anticipated number of rugby teams over the period for the authority as a whole based on the 2010 actual team numbers. Figure 48: Estimated rugby team numbers to 2026 Mini‐rugby ‐ mixed Junior rugby ‐ boys Junior rugby ‐ girls Men’s rugby Women’s rugby 158.
159.
160.
Age Groups
8‐12yrs 13‐17yrs 13‐17yrs 18‐45yrs 18‐45yrs 2010 18 10 0 15 2 2016 19 11 0 16 2 2021 20 11 0 17 2 2026 21 12 0 17 2 2009 Strategy estimate for 2026 26 16 3 16 3 Even with the growth in participation at 1% pa, the revised population projections mean that in the future there is only slow growth likely in the game at each age group. A girls’ team may become established during the period which has not been recorded, but this would have little impact on the need for pitch space. It is assumed that each rugby pitch will be able to cater for the match demand from 4 teams (two matches per week), both for the seniors and minis. At the present time there are sufficient pitches for rugby matches across the authority as a whole and this remains the case up to 2026 (see Figure 49). A key issue identified by the RFU is however the impact of training on pitch quality. The methodology for the assessment of team equivalents varies, but the RFU estimate that there are floodlit training sessions at each of the clubs on 4‐5 nights every week. The impact on those pitches which are floodlit is therefore likely to be greater than the match demand alone. It has been assumed that the demand for training is therefore similar to the situation found in South Northamptonshire, where the training team equivalents has been estimated by the RFU to be an average of 117% that of the senior teams recorded. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 81 of 98 161.
162.
This has a significant effect on the demand for rugby pitch and training space. However, as Figure 50 below suggests even with the training demand included, there will only be a slight shortfall in the space required for rugby up to 2026. The priorities are therefore related to ensuring that the planned/existing pitches and facilities are fully capable of meeting the additional demand arising from the new housing growth and planned participation targets. This may be by improving the quality of the pitches and ancillary facilities, and making sure that the facilities meet the sports development needs of the clubs. The RFU recognises that it may not be possible to provide additional space at most established clubs to support the training needs. They therefore initially consider the ability of the sites to meet this training need through improved pitch maintenance, drainage, and more training quality floodlights, in order to spread the training pressures across more of the existing pitches. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 82 of 98 Figure 49: Demand, supply and balance for rugby (match demand only) Mini‐rugby ‐ mixed Junior rugby ‐ boys Junior rugby ‐ girls Men’s rugby Women’s rugby Current number of large pitches 2010 Age Groups 8‐12yrs 13‐17yrs 13‐17yrs 18‐45yrs 18‐45yrs Number of mini pitches needed @ 4 mini teams per pitch (rounded) Area of playing fields needed @ 1.8 ha per large pitch Area of playing fields needed @ 0.63 ha per mini pitch Total area of playing fields needed for rugby (ha) Current playing field area (ha) Total additional area of playing fields needed for rugby (ha) 2016 19 11 0 16 2 2021 20 11 0 17 2 2026 21 12 0 17 2 13 1 Current number of mini pitches 2010 Number of large pitches needed @ 4 teams per pitch (rounded) 2010 18 10 0 15 2 2010
2016
2021
2026
2010
2016
2021
2026
2010
2016
2021
2026
2010
2016
2021
2026
2010
2016
2021
2026
2010
2016
2021
2026
7 7 7 8 5 5 5 5 12 13 13 14 3 3 3 3 15 16 17 17 24 ‐8 ‐7 ‐7 Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 83 of 98 Figure 50: Demand, supply and balance for rugby (match plus training demand) Age Groups
Mini‐rugby ‐ mixed 8‐12yrs Junior rugby ‐ boys 13‐17yrs Junior rugby ‐ girls 13‐17yrs Men’s rugby 18‐45yrs Women’s rugby 18‐45yrs Current number of large pitches 2010 Current number of mini pitches 2010 2010
2016
2021
Number of large pitches needed @ 4 teams per pitch (rounded) 2026
2010
2016
2021
Number of mini pitches needed @ 4 mini teams per pitch (rounded) 2026
2010
2016
2021
Area of playing fields needed @ 1.8 ha per large pitch 2026
2010
2016
2021
Area of playing fields needed @ 0.63 ha per mini pitch 2026
2010
2016
2021
Total area of playing fields needed for rugby (ha) 2026
Current playing field area (ha) 2010
Total additional area of playing fields needed for rugby (ha) Nortoft Partnerships Ltd 2009 18 10 0 35 2 2016 19 11 0 37 2 13 1 2021 20 11 0 39 2 2026 21 12 0 40 2 12 12 13 14 5 5 5 5 21 22 23 24 3 3 3 3 24 25 27 28 24 2016
2021
2026
Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 1 3 4 Page 84 of 98 163.
Based on these calculations of playing field needs, and including provision for training, the following calculation develops the standard of provision per 1,000. The current provision is 0.09 per 1,000, which is slightly higher than the adopted Strategy rate of 0.08 up to 2021, but the same for the period from 2022. Figure 51: Rugby requirements provision per 1,000 population Total population across authority Total area of playing field space for rugby needed (hectares) incl. estimate for training Provision per 1000 for population for rugby 164.
2010 236,580 2016 263,750 2021 284,600 2026 298,450 24
0.10
25
0.09
27 0.09 28
0.09
As rugby attracts players from a wider geographical area than football or cricket clubs, it is not appropriate to undertake a sub‐area analysis. Comparison to the 2009 Strategy 165.
166.
167.
The significant fall in the total number of people by 2026, particularly in the younger age groups has had some impact on the outcomes for rugby. The 2009 Strategy supported the development of a new club site at Emerson Valley, to which the MK Rugby Club will move. The Strategy also suggested that a further club site would be required for the sport by 2026. The new analysis suggests that the total amount of pitch space currently available to rugby will be sufficient to meet demand, even taking into account some training needs. The priorities now are instead to achieve a successful relocation of the MK Rugby Club and to improve the existing sites at Olney and Manor Fields. Additional pitch space should not however be discounted if the sports development needs show that this is justified, but a complete new site is not required in the period up to 2026, based on the new population projections. The existing MK Rugby Club site could therefore now be considered for other pitch uses as it has high value due to the multi‐pitch nature and relative security. However if part of the site is redeveloped, then the funds raised should be redirected into other playing field improvements across the City. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 85 of 98 Proposals and recommendations •
A standard is proposed of 0.09 ha per 1000 for rugby playing fields through to 2026; •
The priorities are relocation of the MK Rugby Club to Emerson Valley, and the improvement of the existing rugby club sites including their pitches and ancillary facilities. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 86 of 98 Other grass playing field sports 168.
169.
In addition to football, cricket and rugby provision, there is one Gaelic Football site, with a playing field area of around 2 ha (one pitch plus ancillary space). This equates to less than 0.01 ha per 1000 population. Specifically excluded from this assessment have been the following pitch sports, which are found at low participation levels in Milton Keynes. As they use playing fields already available to the community, no additional pitch space allocation has been made. •
American football – currently 1 club with 3 teams, playing on the Stantonbury Campus rugby pitches; •
Baseball and softball – a. need for a new site to replace the pitch lost at Gyosei School for which developers’ contributions have been achieved. This is now proposed to be developed at Conniburrow. However as the development for baseball/softball should not compromise the football use as pitch space in this area of Milton Keynes is already short, the site here is most appropriate for local club use, and only small areas of all weather surface should be developed at key points on the baseball diamond. b. To develop a site as the national training centre for baseball and softball, ideally with 2 diamonds, an indoor training venue and infrastructure. This may be at Woughton‐on‐the Green* or possibly at another venue, yet to be identified. *If MK Dons remain at Woughton on the Green and continue to use the same number of grass pitches as at present, then by 2026 there will be a shortfall of 2 pitches in the Central sub area. However, if they were to re‐
locate elsewhere then there would be a surplus of 2 pitches by 2026 in the Central sub area. This would mean that the site could therefore accommodate a national training centre for baseball/softball. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 87 of 98 Summary and guidelines for provision Proposed standard for quantity of playing field space 170. This summary brings together the proposals in relation to future grass playing pitch provision. In addition to football, cricket and rugby provision, there is one Gaelic Football site, with a playing field area of around 2 ha (one pitch plus ancillary space). This equates to less than 0.01 ha per 1,000 population. 171. The proposed planning standard for playing fields is 0.8 ha per 1,000 population for the period up to 2026. This retains the current levels of provision throughout the period up to 2026, and allows some flexibility should the new housing rates increase in the future. 172. This figure is lower than the originally proposed standard of 1.06 ha per 1,000, and reflects the fact that the population of Milton Keynes is now ageing overall. The new standard is lower than many areas of the country which are closer to 1 ha per 1,000. 173. The planning standard is derived from: Figure 52: Planning standards for playing pitches Total population across authority Total area of playing field space for football needed (hectares) Provision per 1000 population football Total area of playing field space for cricket to be provided (hectares) Provision per 1000 population for cricket Total area of playing field space for rugby needed (hectares) incl estimate for training Provion per 1000 for population for rugby Provision per 1000 for Gaelic Football Total provision per 1000 2010
236580
2016 263750 2021 2026
284600 298450
131
0.56
132 0.50 138 0.49 145
0.48
38
0.16
40 0.15 42 0.15 44
0.15
24.00
0.10
0.01
0.83
25.00 0.09 0.01 0.76 27.00 0.09 0.01 0.74 28.00
0.09
0.01
0.73
Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 88 of 98 Standards and guidelines for quality and accessibility 174.
When planning new sites and considering future options for existing sites, the following criteria should be taken into account. •
Sports should be provided for on separate sites, as they have over‐lapping seasons and different need; •
New pitches should be provided in appropriate locations, which will include accessibility, secure access, appropriate site levels, orientation, surrounding land uses, subsoil, etc.; •
The ‘community use’ sites should not be considered “multi‐purpose” i.e. should not be considered as also being informal recreation sites (should not be part of a park) and should not generally be shared with school use; •
The sites should be designed to discourage significant informal use, including any desire lines/paths crossing the sites and pitches in particular. This will often include a need for fencing; •
All sites should be provided with changing accommodation or clubhouses suitable for the sport and the number of pitches on site, in order to meet Sport England or national governing body guidance; •
Clubhouse/changing pavilions should be designed and developed according to Sport England guidance, or that of the national governing body; •
Pitches should not be located within a floodplain which is estimated to have a flood risk of 1% or greater (1 in 100 years), as identified on the Environment Agency flood maps; •
If senior and junior pitches are proposed to be dual‐use with education, the following principles should be applied: a. The number of pitches which should be provided on site should be significantly greater than the number of pitches required for the educational use alone (so as to avoid overuse); b. If provided for winter sports (rugby union, football) there should be no or very limited use of the grass area during the summer months; c. The pitches should be developed to meet the technical guidance of Sport England or the national governing body for the sport; d. The pitches should be supported by appropriate fully accessible changing facilities; Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 89 of 98 e. The site should have appropriate security arrangements and layouts to enable community use; f. The pitches to be used by the community should be subject to a legally binding community use agreement of not less than 20 years which sets out a minimum level of use per week during the season; g. The pitches should be maintained with an intensive regime to ensure maintenance of standards of play, and the intention to do so should be included within the community use agreement. •
Cricket sites should be within 20 minutes walk/development areas. Summary of investment proposals 175. The investment priorities are now: Football • The priorities for future investment are for a new multi‐pitch site in the North, and improvements to the quality of pitches and ancillary facilities elsewhere; • The playing field provision in the West should be reviewed to reduce the total amount of provision here and to concentrate resources on the best and most flexible sites which can cater for a number of teams at different age groups. If redevelopment is acceptable then surplus funds should be used to improve playing field sites elsewhere in the City. Cricket • In the period up to 2016 Seek to develop one community cricket pitch in the South area; • Support Sports Development initiatives to encourage stronger club development; • In the West and Central areas consider refocusing cricket use on to pitches which have the best opportunity for high quality provision (both pitch and ancillary facilities), in particular reducing the overlap with winter sports, and focus investment on improving quality. If sites are redeveloped for other uses, the funding raised should be used to improve other playing field sites; • In the North and Rural East direct any funding available towards improving the quality of the existing facilities. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 90 of 98 Rugby •
The priorities are relocation of the MK Rugby Club to Emerson Valley, and the improvement of the existing rugby club sites including their pitches and ancillary facilities. Baseball and softball • Develop a new site for baseball and softball to replace the pitch lost at Gyosei School for which developers’ contributions have been achieved at Conniburrow, suitable for club use. • Develop a site as the national training centre for baseball and softball, ideally with 2 diamonds, an indoor training venue and infrastructure. The preferred venue is currently Woughton‐on‐the‐Green, but other sites also need to be explored. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 91 of 98 POLICY AND PLANNING TO DELIVER 176.
177.
There are a number of strategic documents at the local level which impact on the recommendations in this report. Some of the documents have been updated since the 2009 Strategy and the key details can be found below. The “Council Plan 2009‐2011” was updated in 2009. The vision for this document is to “deliver the best possible future for Milton Keynes by creating sustainable communities and opportunities for all” and to make “A City that Thinks Differently, Embraces Evolution and Champions Change”. The key priorities have also changed and the only remaining relevant priority that will impact on sport and leisure is: •
178.
Activities and facilities for young people ‐ to help teenagers achieve their potential and contribute into their community and enjoy their lives. The Local Strategic Partnership has produced the “Sustainable Community Strategy (2004‐2034)”. There are four overall action plans in the document: •
•
•
•
179.
Reinventing our city spaces and places; Delivering the Best Services; Facilitating Participative Communities; Managing Change Together. Action Plan 1 contains specific statements in relation to sporting and leisure provision. “We aspire to be a modern, vibrant city with community, sporting, educational, health, culture and leisure facilities and services appropriate for our growing population and our sub‐region.” Specific targets include: Increasing the number of: • Adults participating in sport; • Children and young people participating in high quality PE and Sport. 180.
181.
The “Cultural Strategy 2006‐2012” acts as a framework for supporting a common strategic direction for culture across Milton Keynes. The document states that “It will be used by all key entities as the over‐arching strategy connecting the priorities of supporting plans and strategies.” Sport features heavily in the document and throughout the four delivery themes of: •
•
•
•
Identity ‐ Diversity, Place and The Centre; Engagement ‐ Results, Resource and Recognition; Opportunity ‐ Change and Wealth; Celebration ‐ Ceremony. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 92 of 98 182.
There are a number of objectives which relate directly to physical activity and sport. These include: •
•
•
•
183.
Develop programmes that expand sporting participation and expand the range of the Milton Keynes sporting ‘offer’; Support developments of new sporting infrastructure and wider participation with existing sporting facilities; Expand the BookStart programme and develop a complementary ArtStart and SportStart programme; Support and develop sporting activities and new infrastructure developments to maximise their impact for all community members. The 10 year vision of the Park Trust in Milton Keynes “A Strategic Plan for the Green Estate” envisages under the heading of Animating the Parks, an events programme with the majority of these organised and run by the community. It also says that: “The green estate will host numerous national and international sporting events such as cricket, cycling, BMX, all terrain boarding, angling, model car racing and bowls.” 184.
185.
186.
187.
188.
The vision also goes on to say that “Physical activity in the parks will be contributing to the improved health of MK citizens.” The immediate three year action plan says that the Trust will “develop an events strategy which considers the mix of events in terms of size and nature. More effort will go into organising large scale events and supporting the community to deliver events.” There is now an updated community safety strategy called the “SaferMK Plan (2009‐
12)”. This document’s main focus is to reduce crime and disorder but also contribute towards an improved quality of life in Milton Keynes. Although sport and physical activity will have a knock on effect to this the document does not specifically recognise this. The “Milton Keynes Cycling Strategy” has been produced by Milton Keynes Council and its main aims are to provide improved and increased cycling routes throughout the city as well as to get more people cycling. It is not related to the sport of cycling but increasing numbers of trips by bicycle and the opportunities for more people to cycle will have a knock on effect on the participation in physical activity. The latest version of the Core Strategy for Milton Keynes is the “Core Strategy: Revised Proposed Submission, October 2010”. This emerging document is likely to be submitted to the Secretary of State in early 2011 so is not currently adopted policy. However, it has been consulted upon and is in the final stages of production. Alongside the existing ‘saved’ Local Plan policies and associated supplementary planning guidance/documents they form the development plan for Milton Keynes. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 93 of 98 189.
The “Milton Keynes International Sporting City‐ Draft Report (December 2010)” is a document, currently in draft form, that seeks to develop the Core Strategy Objective 14: “To develop Milton Keynes as an International Sporting City”. The future successes of the International Sporting City (ISC) are that it should: •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
190.
support MK’s role as a regional centre, promoting its image, attracting inward investment for skilled employment, quality housing and infrastructure; support the vitality and viability of CMK as a regional office centre; enable local communities to achieve improved health and well‐being; provide facilities that are of a national standard, and are located and designed to offer a robust and flexible platform from which a variety of future bids for major events can be launched; make the best use of MK’s accessibility and natural and built infrastructure to host international events and so strengthen MK as one of the UK’s major event and visitor destinations; build upon the strengths of MK’s image as a young vibrant city and forward looking city; embrace the best of new technology and green sustainable development; adopt “smart” approaches to international level sport services such as sports medicine and education working in collaboration with a range of regional education and health organisations; provide opportunities for National Governing Bodies of Sport services to be provided from the City; ensure all ISC proposals are deliverable and viable, and thus recognise the need for enabling development both on‐site and off‐site and also by developing a fund to support the bidding and hosting costs of international events; seek to ensure the ISC is attractive to potential investment from major, national level companies, including those based in MK and in the wider area, as well as offer benefits to smaller local MK companies. The ISC supports the development of a number of sporting facilities and associated supporting facilities as well as the promotion of Milton Keynes for international sporting events. The facilities identified are as follows: •
•
•
A National Playing Field Team Training and Base Camp and ancillary facilities, including 15 ha of playing pitches (on either a single or split site) with some floodlighting and built supporting facilities, so as to allow the facility to function both as the training base for the MK Dons and as a team base for visiting national and international teams in football and other field sports. This facility may need to be able to be delivered at either a single site, or over two sites; A 12‐court sports hall to provide a flexible national level training and events facility for basketball, badminton, fencing and other hall sports; which may be best co‐located with other sports facilities and within or close to the CMK area. At least two a 25m x 8‐lane swimming pools, again co‐located with other facilities to help ensure financial viability; Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 94 of 98 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The enhancement of the National Bowl, Stadium:MK and Arena:MK to increase their ability to support regional, national and international events; A National Baseball and Softball training venue; Potentially a county cricket training venue; A high quality Sports Science/Education/Therapy Centre serving top professional and amateur sports clubs in the region and linked to the facilities and expertise of the regions health and education centres including; University Centre MK; MK General Hospital, and other public and private institutions; Intensification of the Willen Lakeside and Caldecotte Lake for water‐based sports; High quality event and training facilities for running, cycling, off‐road cycling, cyclo‐cross, open water swimming, and triathlon. Given the specialist needs of these sports the site options are limited and will likely include an option for facilities in the Stanton Low Country Park plan and surrounding area; An enhanced facility for track cycling and BMX at the Bowl or at another appropriate alternative location; Provide opportunities for a variety of urban adventurous sports, to meet local activity needs and to attract visitors; including a major skateboard park, a specialist parcours facility, a CMK floodlit synthetic turf pitch with other floodlit general sport activity space, and informal flexible spaces within the CMK public realm where urban sports events can be held; Possibly the development of a “House of Sport” where administration and support services for National Governing Bodies of Sport, major sports clubs and organisations and related health, educational and other bodies can be co‐
located, so as to offer a more cost‐effective, quality, integrated and high profile delivery of sport, leisure and cultural services; A 5* hotel to support the needs of the City, international sports events bids, the International Sporting City and Milton Keynes’ business, conference and event visitors generally; also a 3*/4* hotel associated with the team training base camp. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 95 of 98 Integration with planning policy 191.
192.
193.
194.
195.
It is essential that sports facility provision is securely embedded within the land use planning policies of Milton Keynes to both ensure that sufficient space is allocated to sport and active recreation use, and to unlock funding from developers and regeneration initiatives (as well as other sources). This means that the recommendations from this Refresh as well as the existing detail provided in the 2009 Strategy (where this has not been superseded) will need to be incorporated into a number of Local Development Framework Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) to ensure full integration into planning policy. The documents that this is likely to apply to will include the ‘Development Management DPD’, the ‘Site Allocations DPD’, the ‘Planning Obligations SPD’ and any site specific development framework SPDs. In comparison with the 2009 Strategy, there are now significantly fewer new facilities recommended due to the lower projected population at 2026. Although the new facilities will still need to be supported through planning policies, there should also be a new focus towards policies that support the redevelopment and/or refurbishment of the existing facilities within Milton Keynes. For the new facilities, a ‘Programme of Development’ (POD) will be required to plan and monitor their development. The POD is essentially a list of the facilities needed, when they need to be developed and how they are to be funded (via developer contributions, capital spend etc.). See the next section ‘Proposed Facilities’ below for full details. There will also be a need to attract monies, including from developers contributions, for the refurbishment, extension and possible relocation of existing facilities to enable the facility stock to be enhanced and maintained so that it meets the needs of the existing and new populations. This can be dealt with by drawing up a ‘Programme of Works’ which lists all facilities and the works needed to each, along with the timescales. This should be a ‘live’ document and as such should be regularly updated. These issues should be addressed in planning policy terms by revising the existing Planning Obligations SPDs and Milton Keynes tariff documents, which currently only cover contributions to new facilities. The Milton Keynes Local Development Scheme 2009‐2012 shows that the Planning Obligations DPD will begin to be developed in June 2011 and adopted in April 2012. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 96 of 98 PROPOSED FACILITIES 196.
The table below is a summary of the new facilities proposed for Milton Keynes over the period up to 2026 along with an estimated cost. Figure 53: Facility 12 badminton court sports hall 4‐6 badminton court sports hall 4 badminton court sports hall Radcliffe Secondary School WEA Secondary School 4 badminton court sports hall EEA Secondary School 25m x 8 lane pool + teaching pool 25m x 8 lane pool + teaching pool Water space equivalent to 25m x 8 lane pool + teaching pool Full size AGP Full size AGP CMK West End Full size AGP Full size AGP Preferred location CMK West End Proposed Facilities When ASAP Estimated cost* £8,250,000 ASAP £2,750,000 ‐ £4,125,000 £2,750,000 Alongside development of school Alongside development of school By 2021 £2,750,000 £6,785,625 Western flank or EEA By 2021 £6,785,625 Location unknown (provided by commercial sector) By 2026 £6,785,625 CMK West End Radcliffe Secondary School WEA Secondary School EEA Secondary School North Sub Area 2011‐2012 By 2026 £725,000 £725,000 By 2026 £725,000 By 2026 £725,000 Multi‐ pitch football ASAP £910,000 site (8 ha) Community cricket South Sub Area By 2016 £435,000 pitch *Costs are rounded and based on Sport England Facility Costs‐ 1st Quarter 2010. The figures do not include land costs, site abnormals, VAT and inflation. Figures are indicative and should be used as a guide only. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 97 of 98 Monitoring and review 197.
The Sport and Leisure Strategy should have a full review by 2013 to take account of: •
Variations from the anticipated housing growth patterns; •
General changes in participation; •
Changes within sports and attractiveness of ‘new’ sports; •
The success of local clubs and their demand for new or improved facilities and pitches; •
Progress on the International Sporting City proposals; •
Changes in the supply of pitch space and ancillary facilities. Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Milton Keynes Sport & Leisure Strategy Refresh Draft Report: December 2010 Page 98 of 98 Milton Keynes
Sport and Leisure Strategy Refresh
www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/leisure-and-culture
Available in audio, large print,
Braille and other languages
Tel 01908 254589
Milton Keynes Council
Saxon Court
502 Avebury Boulevard
Central Milton Keynes
MK9 3HS
T 01908 253632
F 01908 253420
E leisureservices@miltonkeynes.gov.uk
W www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/
leisure-and-culture

Milton Keynes Sport and Leisure Strategy Refresh

Transcription

Similar documents

new milton advertiser man found dead after inferno destroys flat

PLOBANNALEC-LESCONIL, L`Océan Breton

CAMPING** Gennes - Camping Au Bord de Loire

Working with the Media

Little Haven Holiday Park, Chapel St Leonards revised price

Pronalen Sport

SU Sport Newsletter - University of Bath Students` Union

Click Here to

Dia 1 - Association of Sport Performance Centres

college official`s report curry college

Keynes`s Economic Thought and the Theory of Consumer Behaviour