STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL … Review of Sports... · NUMBER SECTION P EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 ... 3 STRATEGIC CONTEXT 23 4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 38 5 LONDON BOROUGH

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0 JANUARY 2008

www.continuumleisure.co.uk - 1 -

PRODUCED BY:

CONTINUUM SPORT & LEISURE LTD

PRODUCED FOR:

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT

FULL REVIEW VERSION 2.0

JANUARY 2008



DOCUMENT CONTROL Amendment History Version No. Date Reference Author Comments 1.0 19/11/07 Strategic Review of

Sports Centres in Brent- Full Review Version 1.0 November 2007 (Draft For Comment)

Matt James / Nick Trim

Final version of full study for client review

2.0 22/01/08 Strategic Review of Sports Centres in Brent - Full Review - Version 2.0 January 2008

Matt James / Nick Trim

Final version of full study for client review

Sign-off List Name Position Date Comments Distribution List Name Position Comments Gerry Kiefer Sue Harper



CONTENT

NUMBER SECTION P

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND - THE STUDY 15

2 METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

20

3 STRATEGIC CONTEXT

23

4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

38

5 LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

65

6 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

105

7 PLANNING ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

110

8 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW AND FACILITY HEALTH CHECK

122

9 SITE SPECIFIC OPTIONS AND OUTLINE COST APPRAISALS 131

10 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 154

Appendices Appendix 1 - Site Specific Reviews (Under Separate Cover) Appendix 2 - Facilities Planning Model Brief Appendix 3 - LB Brent Grass Pitches Appendix 4 - Planned Sport And Leisure Facility Development

Within Brent’s Neighbouring Boroughs Appendix 5 - Cost Appraisal Assumptions

164 169 171 178



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Continuum Sport and Leisure Ltd were commissioned by the London Borough of

Brent in June 2007, to undertake a strategic review of three of the borough’s council

owned sports centres, Charteris Sports Centre, Bridge Park Community Leisure

Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre. As stipulated by the Client Team at LB Brent

Willesden Sports Centre was not subject to site specific or financial and design

review due to its recent construction (2006) and successful operation to date. The

impact of Willesden Sports Centre has however been considered within the borough-

wide facility analysis. The centre’s operational data has also been used as a

comparator in relation to financial performance and usage figures of the other three

centres.

In line with the objectives of the client brief, the review has focused on three centres

as detailed above and determined a range of outline development options for all

three sites. The opportunities identified and recommendations made within this

review provide the London Borough of Brent with outline costs of providing modern,

attractive, cost effective facilities which can better serve the leisure needs of local

residents and increase participation levels over the next 10 – 15 years.

The development options proposed have arisen from a comprehensive research

process which has incorporated strategic analysis of relevant policy, strategy and

previous research documentation, consultation with key internal stakeholders, and

both site specific and borough-wide facility analysis. Following financial review of the

current operation of the three centres as well as the key planning issues (and

policies) pertinent to development options under consideration, the research process

culminated with a financial options appraisal providing outline capital cost

implications for future options at all three sites.

The broad strategic review of relevant policy and guidance at national, regional and

local levels highlights the potential of any positive change at all three centres to not

only meet wider social objectives, but also to align with specific priorities of the

Council’s Sport Service and Planning Departments. The demographic profile and

analysis of participation levels across the borough provide further evidence of the



need for improved sports facility provision in or near to the existing sites

(Stonebridge ward in particular) to help tackle major social issues such as poor

health, high incidence of crime and low educational attainment. The socio-economic

status of Brent residents (particularly in the Stonebridge and South Kilburn areas)

emphasises the importance of providing affordable facility provision accessible on a

pay and play basis.

The review acknowledges that participation levels across the borough are some of

the lowest in London and low levels of participation around the three existing centres

provide a further indicator of the need for change and improvement to facility

provision in these areas.

Borough-wide Facility Analysis

The focus of this element of the study has been to determine how any proposed

developments at the three sites would provide appropriate facilities which are

needed across the borough as a whole. It was vital therefore to conduct an outline

analysis of borough-wide facility provision. The facility analysis was also critical in

determining the level of demand for the existing facility mix at each centre. Using a

combination of approaches, Sport England’s Strategic Planning Tools (the Facilities

Planning Model, Actives Places Power) alongside facility catchment mapping, the

analysis has proved conclusive in confirming the need for key facility types currently

accommodated at the three centres.

The review has established specifically that sports hall provision across the borough

is substantial, but accessibility is limited. A number of facilities located at school sites

do not allow community access and an opportunity exists to increase capacity further

by working with schools to allow greater public use. In relation to the three centres

under review, the provision of existing accessible and affordable sports hall space is

highly important, particularly in Stonebridge and Kilburn (Bridge Park Community

Leisure Centre and Charteris Sports Centre) where alternative public provision is

limited. Planned provision including the development of the Wembley and Copland

Academies in central Brent as well as the potential development as part of the South

Kilburn NDC masterplan may help to reduce any future deficit in access to, and in

turn supply of, affordable indoor sports space.



Health and fitness facility provision across Brent is below the London average for

facility provision per 1000 population and there is an evident need to increase the

capacity and quantity of health and fitness stations across the borough, particularly

public access facilities (which often do not require expensive registered membership

for use.) All three centres under review play an important role in providing accessible

and affordable facilities, in or near to areas of income deprivation. Any

redevelopment options or new facility provision at the three main sites should

therefore seek to increase the capacity of this facility type further to meet identified

borough-wide and local needs.

Swimming Provision and Demand for a Third Pool

The study confirms that the provision for swimming across the borough is critically

low with just two community accessible pools currently in operation. Despite the

planned development of additional swimming facilities outside the borough

boundary, the construction of at least one additional community swimming pool

within Brent remains a priority. Whilst the identification of defined locations for new

provision was outside the remit of this study, analysis suggests a third pool in the

north / central area of the borough would appear to serve the greatest levels of

identified demand from Brent residents both now and over the next 10 – 15 years.

Improving and or replacing the swimming pool at Vale Farm Sports Centre are also

regarded as priorities. However, further investigation into the current status, lifespan

and economic viability of the existing pool facility is required to determine likely

timescales and any detailed cost of such development.

Options Appraisal

The options appraisal process, in line with standard practice, applied an initial ‘do

minimum’ cost for all of the three centres. This provides a benchmark of total on-

going costs if just the most necessary ongoing maintenance and improvements were

undertaken.

The options appraisal then proceeded to provide an outline indication of the best

value option at each site (do minimum, refurbishment / redevelopment, new build)



by comparing the total cost position over a 25 year period. At all three sites, because

of the increased income and improved operational efficiency that could be realised

through new build (more so than refurbishment), this otion represented the greatest

value for money by a considerable margin.

Table 1: Total cost position over 25 years for all centres combined:

Option Total Cost Net Present Value

Do Minimum £53.73m £34.82m

Refurbishment £50.59m £33.34m

New Build £28.04m £19.42m

Facility closures N/A N/A

Through consultation and planning policy analysis, the leading issues surrounding

any future development of each of the three sites have been discussed within the

review. Where necessary, the study highlights where further investigations by LB

Brent are required in order to determine and address some of the more complex

issues which will influence the Council’s investment decisions and how each project

can be progressed.

Charteris Sports Centre

The least complex and expensive of the three sites, the preferred option for

development identified involves the new build of the centre in-situ but replacing the

sports hall with a health and fitness facility of greater capacity (which is in demand

locally) alongside a dedicated dance studio. The outline capital cost associated with

this option has been estimated at £1.3 million, and, due to the increased income

generated through improved functionality and operational efficiency, the options

appraisal recognises a the total cost position over 25 years as a slight surplus of

approx £0.73 million.

Public access sports hall provision in this area of the borough is in deficit and to

proceed with this option (to close the sports hall) would require other projects

planned locally to provide suitable replacement facilities for indoor sport. The



development plans of the South Kilburn NDC in particular require further clarification

as to the content of any leisure provision and potential for indoor sports space.

Alongside this is the planned development of St Augustine’s school which would

provide suitable indoor sports hall space in the local catchment of Charteris.

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

The review discusses in detail the complexities of the Bridge Park Community Leisure

Centre site. Owned by the Greater London Council, the current covenant for the site

requires further clarification to determine the future requirement for the re-provision

of leisure and community facilities as part of any re-development. Furthermore, the

future plans for the neighbouring derelict Unisys site also have the potential to

heavily influence any future development option taken forward.

Considerable evidence supports the need for a community leisure centre in this area

of the borough. The options appraisal process has identified that new build would

represent the greatest value for money by some margin, with real potential to attract

greater usage in an area of need. The site holds the potential for enabling

development (residential) which could form the central capital funding source for the

project. The estimated cost of this option is £7.6million which could be funded

through a capital receipt of an estimated £9.9million for enabling development of the

land on which Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre stands. Over a 25 year period,

initial estimations suggest that the total cost position would be in the region of a

£1.2 million deficit which, including all lifecycle costs associated with the new facility,

represents notably better value for money.

A number of key issues remain for the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre site.

Firstly, whether the neighbouring Unisys site should be included (possibly through a

compulsory purchase order) as part of a whole site development, and if so what the

likely impact on costs and timescales would be. Secondly, if the neighbouring Unisys

site remains derelict, will the project see a negative impact on the sale value of any

residential developments at the site, reducing capital contributions and potentially

the overall quality of the scheme. Finally, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre was

previously owned by the Greater London Council, and full confirmation of the terms

and conditions and financial impact of redeveloping the site is required before any



project can progress. Determining the level of re-provision required for the existing

community facilities and a substantial number of business units at the site are of

central importance.

Vale Farm Sports Centre

The potential to develop a multi-sport hub site at the Vale Farm site is a real

possibility coupled with the lack of swimming pool space in Brent which should

remain a major concern and influence in securing this site for sport. The importance

of protecting the site is emphasised within LB Brent Planning Policy, but this also

prohibits any enabling development and the possibility of any capital receipt for sale

of any part of the site to be used to fund any new leisure development proposed.

Outline capital cost estimates demonstrate that new build, estimated at £12.9

million, would represent greater value for money (and has the potential to attract

greater levels of participation) than any form of refurbishment with the total cost

position over 25 years representing a deficit of approximately £26.9 million for new

build, set against £28.8 million for refurbishment (which would include capital costs

for refurbishment estimated in the region of £6.4 million).

The site holds potential for development as a major community sports centre in West

London and a decision will need to be made as to whether LB Brent can, alongside

other priority projects, afford to pursue the new build option at the site. Whilst the

project requires significant capital investment, in the long-term the new build option

provides better value for money.

How LB Brent Moves Forward – Priorities for Development

The strategic review has focused on the current leisure centres in Brent providing an

outline as to the needs and priorities of LB Brent for future provision and the best

value for money solutions which address local and borough-wide strategic need. The

review process has clearly confirmed that the development of a new swimming pool

facility would address the most urgent shortfall within the borough.

As agreed with the Client Team at LB Brent at the outset of this project, this review

does not provide any detailed analysis of the development of a new pool, having

specifically concentrated on the solutions and options for the three centres. However,



moving forward with the options we have presented for the three centres is of course

influenced by the need for increasing the provision of swimming in Brent and its

impact across the borough in relation to levels of participation and activity.

What follows is the Consultant Team’s priority list for development by LB Brent and a

brief explanation of the key issues which influence both the position of the project on

the priority list and the potential to realise any new development proposed.

Priority Project Facility Type /

Changes Key Issues

1 New Pool New build swimming pool

Borough-wide strategic facility deficiency. Potential to have significant impact upon levels of activity and participation as has been witnessed recently at Willesden Sports Centre. Location remains undetermined but central and north areas of borough show greatest need. Funding and capital costs undetermined at this stage as not part of original strategic review process. Dry side mix and potential for dual use centre has not been investigated but should be considered as a priority. Key issues influencing delivery include

o Identification of a suitable and affordable site.

o LB Brent identifying site specific capital or S106 fund for example to provide funding towards new development.

o Further survey works on current leisure stock (Vale Farm in particular) do not lead to significant budget and funding having to be diverted to keeping current stock viable.

Next Steps Required



Priority Project Facility Type / Changes

Key Issues

1. Fully detailed feasibility study and business plan for the third pool site for decision alongside the leisure stock changes before summer 2008.

2 Bridge Park New build dry side

sport and community facilities

The affordability of the project has been assessed as part of the review and the mixed use development with housing highlights that a new build project is affordable for LB Brent set against the current cost of the facilities in situ. The Consultant Team recommend that due to the complexities of the surrounding area, the Bridge Park site alone is developed for leisure and housing on the understanding with LB Brent planning department that the Unisys site will be given some priority for future development. The development of the Bridge Park site would provide an affordable leisure facility and have a very positive impact upon the quality of facilities on offer for the local catchment and for the borough in general. Key issues influencing delivery include

o Housing valuations and planning can be realised.

o GLC covenant is not prohibitive. o Planning and regeneration team

commit to long term regeneration of Unisys site.

Next Steps Required

1. Fully detailed design and feasibility for the Bridge Park site.

3 Charteris New build health

and fitness facility The smallest of the main sites scoring high on affordability and deliverability. However, it would not have such an impact upon the overall borough-wide levels of provision outside of health and




Key Issues

fitness given its scale, and thus is less of a priority than the leading 2 projects. The continued provision of this local community focused facility is dependent upon the plans being discussed for leisure provision in relation to local needs (and planning priority for indoor space). Key issues influencing delivery include

o Progress and timing of any new developments and provision of indoor sports space, notably the NDC project and St Augustine’s school.

o Budgetary issues for the first 2 priority projects and the potential need to channel site value for Charteris into new pool site as a higher priority project.

Next Steps Required

1. Leisure team to gain a steer on the leisure mix in the NDC project by March 2008.

2. Await detailed outcomes of priority projects 1 and 2 and review site options for Charteris.

4 Vale Farm New build wet and dry side sports complex incorporating outdoor sports facilities

The impact of Vale Farm would be felt across the borough, however it is a longer term vision at present than the needs identified in the review. The needs of the new swimming pool and the affordability of Bridge Park and Charteris place them higher in terms of priorities for LB Brent. Questions remain over the longevity of current building which need to be answered and the key issue is that the on-going provision of swimming in Brent is protected and increased.




Key Issues

Key issues influencing delivery include

o Budgetary issues from the leading priority projects.

o The need to ensure continued service delivery of swimming in particular on the site, given borough-wide shortfall at present.

o Clarity on the longevity of the building and if the immediate to medium term provision for swimming is to be under threat and additional financial resources are required to be diverted to this project.

Next Steps Required

1. Vale Farm intrusive condition survey to determine whether immediate remedial action is required to extend on-going service.

2. A more in depth design and business planning process to determine both the economic life of the facility. More detailed capital costs of the facility changes proposed should be compared with the other 3 projects to assist in decision making for summer 2008.

It is clear that LB Brent has a number of important decisions to make as to how to

progress with the identified and required changes to the current leisure facility stock

and sports centres in the borough.

It is also clear that the current situation does not provide value for money set

against the proposed new build outline costs which have been identified.

The borough as a whole has a significant way to go to both drive up the levels of

participation and also address the facility shortfalls and dated leisure stock which is

currently on offer. As demonstrated by Willesden Sports Centre, modern, fit for



purpose facilities have the potential to make a major impact by attracting

considerably higher usage levels.

The Consultant Team feels that the completion of this review process will enable LB

Brent to achieve further positive change through significant additions and

improvements to the borough’s leisure facility stock.



1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of the three main leisure

centres, namely Charteris Sports Centre, Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and

Vale Farm Sports Centre, and to determine future development options for these

specific facilities that will best serve the needs of the Brent population over the

forthcoming years. The options devised have been set against an audit and

evaluation of borough-wide facility provision in line with the requirements of the

client brief.

The study concentrates specifically on the current status and future development

options for Charteris, Vale Farm and Bridge Park Leisure Centres. Given its recent

development, a detailed review of Willesden Sports Centre has not been undertaken

but the impact of the new facility has been considered as part of the borough-wide

strategic review of provision and as a useful comparison to evaluate the financial and

usage performance of the other three centres.

Underpinned by a detailed research process of consultation, strategic, facility

provision and financial analysis, the review investigates and explores the

opportunities for redevelopment, demolition, refurbishment or modernisation of

these three main Council operated facilities. Ultimately, the opportunities and

recommendations made within this report have been devised to aid LB Brent in

establishing the need for and outline costs of providing modern, attractive, cost

effective facilities which can better serve the leisure needs of local residents and

increase participation levels over the forthcoming decades.

A short introduction to the three centres follows:

1.1 Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Bridge Park Leisure Centre is classified as a mixed use leisure and community centre.

It has a significant amount of community function space and a large number of

business units alongside a five court sports hall, dance studios and two health and

fitness facilities. The facility is located in the South of the borough, within the ward

of Stonebridge, and in close proximity to the North Circular. The Bridge Park site



covers approximately 1.4ha and is bordered by derelict land and disused office

buildings to the south and west and a breakers yard to the south east.

Figure 1.1: Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Alongside a good location, the facility has been well maintained internally and the

mix of sporting and non-sporting facilities proves popular with many sectors of the

local community. This is a well liked public facility.

Opened in 1985 as a conversion of a former bus garage, the layout of the sports and

fitness facilities is not typical in terms of size and shape. Changing provision and the

core space occupied by sports facility provision is minimal in relation to the site

footprint. The result is a reduction in the quality of the sports offer, the potential for

income generation and the operational efficiency, in comparison to the design and

function of a ‘typical’ modern centre.

1.2 Vale Farm Sports Centre

Vale Farm Sports Centre is a large mixed use wet and dry-side leisure complex with

considerable outdoor space. Constructed as a leisure centre in 1979 (Synthetic Turf

Pitch [STP] installed afterwards in 1984) it is currently managed by Leisure

Connections who have just commenced a new five year contract.

Located to the West of the borough in the ward of Sudbury, the centre boasts a five

court sports hall, a 25m swimming pool and teaching pool, squash courts, dance

studio space, martial arts dojo and modern health and fitness facilities. Externally



the site contains an STP and a now disused cinder athletics track; it borders the Vale

Farm Sports Ground which contains multiple grass pitches and tennis courts, many

of which are leased to local clubs.

Figure 1.2: Vale Farm Sports Centre

The facility is showing signs of age and despite ongoing refurbishments there are

concerns about its structure. Considerable work is required to improve the

functionality of the existing facility mix and modernise the appearance of the centre’s

interior and exterior.

1.3 Charteris Sports Centre

Charteris Sports Centre can be described as a small, ‘non-standard’ leisure centre

without outdoor facility provision. Located in a residential area in the Kilburn ward to

the South East of the borough, the centre incorporates a small 3 court sports hall,

health and fitness studio and a separate free weights room. The centre is reported to

be 24 years old and a conversion of a former factory.



Figure 1.3: Charteris Sports Centre

Recent investment into the health and fitness studio has ensured that this element of

the centre is modern and good quality and it is the main income generator for

Charteris. On the whole, despite clear evidence of regular maintenance and cleaning,

the site constraints, design and layout inhibit the function of the centre considerably.

Layout and circulation is poor with narrow corridors and no natural light internally.

The reception area is insufficient for the operation of the facility and changing

facilities are too small to serve their purpose. In addition, the activities (and

standards) accommodated within the sports hall are adversely affected by the design

and low roof trusses; concerns over the structural condition have been raised.

A detailed site assessment for each of the three centres which further identifies

strengths, weaknesses and potential for development can be found as Appendix 1

of this report.

1.4 Report Content

The report is presented in ten sections; Section Two provides details on the approach

and methodology, Section Three identifies the national, regional and local policy that

provides the strategic context of the study and underpins any future development.

Section Four provides a detailed demographic profile of the borough alongside a

summary of findings from the most recent Active People survey of sport and leisure

participation levels. Section Five contains a detailed review and analysis of the

borough’s facility stock, highlighting areas of shortfall or surplus in facility provision

across the borough set against the locations of the three centres under review. The



findings of a detailed consultation with key stakeholders is provided within Section

Six and Section Seven provides an overview of the planning issues pertinent to the

potential development of the three centres specifically and sport and leisure facility

development across the borough generally. Section Eight identifies the financial

position and issues facing the three centres inclusive of an analysis of recent levels of

usage. Section Nine presents possible options for development at the three sites

supported by outline cost appraisals. Finally, Section Ten provides the study

conclusion and recommendations including an indication of the leading factors that

LB Brent will need to consider when deciding upon the priorities for any potential

development of sports centres across the borough.



2. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH In order to ensure a thorough and robust review of and redevelopment options for

three of Brent’s main leisure centres, a comprehensive methodology has been

utilised. The methodological approach is founded upon analysis of strategic context,

an audit and analysis of borough-wide facility provision, consultation with local

stakeholders and reviews of both the physical status and financial performance of the

three leisure centres under review.

This approach has culminated in the proposal of clear options supported by outline

capital cost appraisals, forming a solid basis on which to consider the options for

future development at the three sites.

The approach can be broken down into five key elements:

2.1 Review and Analysis - Studies, Strategy and Policy

The review has been based on a thorough analysis of the strategic context at a

national, regional and local level. Establishing relevant strategic priorities,

particularly at a local level, has provided significant justification for the need to

consider development at each of the three main leisure centre sites. It also provides

an insight into the true potential of a more modern leisure stock in assisting in

meeting wider objectives around health, crime reduction, the local economy,

planning and regeneration within Brent.

A detailed review of the demographic profile of the borough identifies areas of

potential change and incorporates future growth projections. This section highlights

relevant statistics for education and skills, health, crime and safety amongst other

2.1 Review and Analysis - Studies, Strategy and Policy

2.2 Consultation

2.3 Facility Analysis

a. Site Specific

b. Borough-wide

2.4 Options Development and Financial Appraisals



demographic characteristics, both borough-wide and specific to the location of the

three centres.

An important backdrop to the study is provided by an evaluation of the findings of

the 2006 Active People Survey for general and sports specific participation rates,

which are analysed in relation to Brent’s demographic characteristics.

2.2 Consultation

A thorough consultation targeted strategic level stakeholders (via in-depth interview)

and has been critical to the development of facility options that are fully reflective of

high level aspirations, opinion and knowledge. Consultation took place with a number

of key representatives from the council including: Cllr Irwin Van Colle - Lead Member

for Environment and Culture, Richard Saunders - Director Environment & Culture,

Sue Harper - Assistant Director, Environment & Culture, Gerry Kiefer - Head of

Sports Service, Dave Carroll - Head of Planning (Policy & Development), James

Picton - Area Manager, Leisure Connection, Mick McDonnell - Brent PE Advisor, Nitin

Parshotam - Head of Asset Management (Children & Families), Andy Donald - Head

of Regeneration, James Young - Property and Asset Management Services. Key

leisure representatives from Brent’s neighbouring boroughs were also interviewed to

ascertain major planned leisure developments locally.

2.3 Facility Analysis

Undertaken in two phases, the facility analysis has incorporated site assessments for

the three centres alongside a borough-wide audit and analysis of the current levels

of sports facility provision.

Providing evaluation of the key design, layout and operational issues pertinent to

each of the three centres under review has helped to inform the potential for re-

development at each of the sites.

Specific planning issues of critical importance to the development of the three

centres have been reviewed alongside a consideration of the relevant UDP / Local

Development Framework Policy.



In assessing the current and future levels of supply (and in some cases demand) the

borough-wide facility audit has helped to determine the needs case for facility

provision in the areas where the centres are currently situated. The process has also

confirmed clear deficiencies in facility provision elsewhere in the borough, an issue

that LB Brent should be mindful of in moving forward.

2.4 Options Development and Financial Appraisals

The consultation findings, the strategic needs of the Council, the demographic and

participation needs of the borough set against the site specific issues and planning

considerations have all helped to inform the proposal of a range of outline options for

each of the three sites for LB Brent to consider. These options are presented in the

report.

The development options have been subject to a financial options appraisal which

incorporates key factors such as the cost of new build, refurbishment, lifecycle costs

and, where appropriate, capital receipt. The process has established the outline

financial implications for LB Brent over the next 25 years. Comments upon the key

issues for consideration associated with each option have been made alongside clear

recommendations to aid LB Brent in selecting an appropriate direction in which to

make improvements.



3. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

3.1 Introduction

The development of facilities for sport and physical activity should always be set

against a wide reaching strategic context. This section sets out the context for any

development of sport, leisure and physical activity in Brent from a National, regional

and local level perspective, providing a summary of the content of relevant

strategies. The strategic review aims to provide a basis from which the future

development of Brent’s leisure centres is aligned with national, regional and local

strategic objectives wherever possible. The recommendations made in this report

take into full account the wider strategic value of the outcomes which accompany

development.

Throughout this section a number of key themes surface, areas in which the

development and improvement of the sports facility infrastructure in Brent can have

a lasting impact. The Priorities Matrix at the end of the section provides a snapshot

of those themes and the regularity with which they appear within the policy under

analysis.

3.2 National Context

Game Plan (published in December 2002) was produced jointly by the

Government’s Strategy Unit and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport

(DCMS). It is a strategy for delivering the Government's sport and physical activity

objectives and specifically addresses two interlinked areas. Firstly, it aims for a

significant increase in adult participation in sport and physical activity - 70% of the

population to be active by 2020 (participating 3 x 30mins per week). Secondly, it

aims to achieve a sustainable increase in the level of success at international

competition. Support is given to any reform required to achieve these targets.

The subtext of Game Plan is that through sport and physical activity the quality of

life of marginalised groups in society can be improved. It is hoped that a wider

population can become healthier, better educated, gain employment, and can be

diverted from anti-social behaviour.



This underpins a high percentage of strategic policy produced since its publication

and any sports related development must be mindful of these concepts in order to

obtain maximum benefit for the local community as well as support from local and

strategic agencies.

One major development to arise from Game Plan has been the consultation and re-

evaluation exercise by Sport England that has produced the National Framework

for Sport in England: Making England an Active and Successful Sporting

Nation: A Vision for 2020 (2004). This should be regarded as a key document in

relation to future developments. Particular attention should be paid to the seven key

themes represented within it: increasing participation, improving performance,

widening access, improving health and well-being, community safety, education, and

benefiting the economy. Any development involving sporting outputs needs to

address these seven outcomes. These are further detailed later in this section under

the London Regional Plan for Sport.

3.3 Participation and Health

The ‘Choosing Health’ (2004) White Paper, published by the Department of

Health, addresses the factors which contribute to significant inequalities in the

distribution of health. Findings show how socio-economic status, geographical

location and lifestyle issues impact upon levels of physical activity and inactivity (as

echoed by the findings of the Active People survey 2006, and discussed in more

detail within the following section of this report).

Following this, the consultation paper Choosing Health? Choosing Activity?

(March 2005) aimed to identify and promote a variety of physical activities for all to

achieve health benefits. The paper is supportive of the need to increase levels of

physical activity among all people but, like Game Plan, pays particular attention to

under-represented groups. The following section of this review will provide further

clarity upon of the impact of demographic characteristics upon levels of participation,

helping to identify targets in relation to enhanced participation opportunities

generally and more specifically in the context of the three leisure centres under

review.



3.4 Participation and Crime Reduction

A common link can often be made between young people and crime, disengagement

and boredom. National research demonstrates that involvement in sport can engage

people in a positive way, occupying time in a constructive manner and reducing the

likelihood of re-offending. The most important element in engaging young people in

this way is the provision of facilities and activities in which they are keen to

participate from an early age. This concept is noted within ‘Teaming Up – Joint

working between sport and neighbourhood renewal practitioners’ (OPDM

Neighbourhood Renewal Unit 2004):

‘One of the greatest strengths of sport is the role it can play in preventing

future problems. For example, intervening in the life of a young person at

an early stage can reduce the risk that they will get involved in crime or

anti-social behaviour. Preventing this behaviour can reduce repair bills

from vandalism, save police and court time, and lessen the fear of crime.’

As will be established within the following Demographic Profile, Stonebridge and

surrounding wards are identified as crime hotspots within Brent, emphasising the

potential role and importance of sports facility provision to host diversionary

activities within these locations.

3.5 Participation and Education

The National PE, School Sport and Club Links (PESSCL) Strategy (2003) and

Strategy Update (2004) promote the principal of equality through the delivery of

high quality PE and school sport (including dance). The overall objectives of the

strategy are to increase the percentage of 5-16 year olds who spend a minimum of

two hours each week participating in high quality PE and school sport, within and

beyond the curriculum, from 25% in 2002 to 75% in 2006 and 85% in 2008.

Recently the target for all schools has been set higher at 5 hours of sports and

activity. This calls into question the variety, quality and amount of school and

community based facility provision available to meet these targets in and out of

school hours. This Review identifies the important role of Vale Farm, Bridge Park,

and to a lesser extent Charteris in catering for school demand and the suitability of

the existing facility provision should be considered in the context of this demand.



3.6 Planning for Sport

Planning Policy Guidance Note - Sport, Recreation and Open Space PPG 17

(September 2001) refers to the need for local authorities to consult Sport England

about developments that affect land used as playing fields. Sport England has a long

commitment to and involvement in the land use planning system.

Planning objectives acknowledge the importance of open spaces, sport and

recreation and state that ‘well designed and implemented’ planning policies are

‘fundamental to delivering broader Government objectives’. Commonality with

Government and national sports policy is expected, particularly in relation to:

o Promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion – well planned

and maintained open spaces and good quality sports and recreational facilities

can play a major part in improving people’s sense of well being in the place

they live. Any development or re-provision of the three centres has the

potential to increase this sense of well being. Equally, closure has the

potential to reduce social inclusion and community cohesion.

o Health and well being – open spaces, sports and recreational facilities have

a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness. Within

the following demographic profile the review identifies health inequalities

across the borough that should be considered in context with planned

investments into the sports facility infrastructure, including parks and open

space.

o Promoting more sustainable development – by ensuring that open

spaces, sports and recreational facilities (particularly in urban areas) are

easily accessible by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or

intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned for locations well

served by public transport. This theme (the need for facility provision to be

locally and easily accessible), in conjunction with the indicators of the CPA

assessment, underpins much of the subsequent analysis of existing facility

provision alongside current and future areas of demand.



3.7 Audit Commission Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) 2005

Every year the Audit Commission assesses the overall performance of each Local

Authority on the basis of how well the Council is run, how its main services are

performing and how it uses resources.

Previously, there had been little performance information on sport and active

recreation included within CPA assessments. Performance indicators for sport and

physical activity (as part of the culture block) have now been developed in line with

the DCMS national participation public service agreement (PSA) targets that are also

reflected in the Framework for Sport and Regional Plans. Data for the following

indicators is now available through the National Benchmarking Service, Active Places

and the Active People survey:

o Participation

o Volunteering

o Equity

o Value for Money

o Choice and Opportunity

The Choice and Opportunity indicator refers specifically to the location and quality of

sports facility provision for local residents and will be discussed in greater detail

within borough-wide facility audit (Section 5) of this report

3.8 Regional Context

Turning to policy targeted toward the development of sport and physical activity

across the capital, the ‘London Plan for Sport and Physical Activity’ (2004) is

one of nine regional plans produced by Sport England as a response to the National

Framework for Sport. The seven key outcomes associated with this plan mirror those

of the National Framework detailed earlier in this section. Sport England advocate

that any new proposal for significant or large-scale sports facility development

should be able to address all seven outcomes directly and, in doing so, has the

potential to make a positive contribution to many of the demographic issues that

Brent faces, as will be emphasised shortly.



The London Plan (2004) is the name given to the Mayor's spatial development

strategy. The theme of sustainable improvement to the quality of life of all who live

and work in London runs through it and this is a concept that applies directly to the

need for improvement to facility provision in Brent.

Pro-Active West London is one of London’s five sub-regional sport and physical

activity Partnerships established in May 2006, with the key aim ‘to coordinate the

delivery of sport and active recreation across the West London sub-region, driving

increased participation in sport and physical activity at all levels for all people in

Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow.’ The

over-riding strategic priorities of the Pro-Active West London Partnership apply

directly to key objectives that underpin the need to review sports facility provision in

Brent, they are:

o To increase overall participation by adults in sport and physical activity

o To increase participation by all under-represented groups

o To provide the structures for individuals to realise their sporting potential

The West London Alliance (WLA) comprises the boroughs of Brent, Ealing,

Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow. The key aims of the WLA

are:

o To lobby for the interests of the sub-region

o To develop collaborative strategies and initiatives on key issues such as

transport and economic development

o To improve provision of public services in West London through sharing

knowledge, expertise and resources, undertaking joint ventures, and

securing additional resources

Improving sports facilities across the sub-region is a key priority shared by both the

WLA and Pro-active West London. Particular focus is placed upon ensuring that

maximum benefit for local residents and businesses can be secured from the lead up

to and legacy of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Key objectives include,

amongst others, an increase in participation and achievement in sport among West

London’s residents, developing community sports events, building links with schools



and improving skills and developing training, employment and volunteer

opportunities.

Improving sports facilities in West London is a strategic priority of the region in the

run-up to London 2012 and undoubtedly an opportune moment for LB Brent to

address the quality of its own provision in this area. Support should be sought from

the WLA and Pro-active West London with any developments under consideration.

3.9 Local Policy

As we have seen, much national and regional policy emphasises the positive impact

participation in sport and leisure activity can have on social issues. At a local level,

the potential for sport to achieve some of the borough’s most important social

objectives is emphasised heavily within the key policy documents.

Brent’s Corporate Strategy 2006-2010 sets out the Council’s priorities and

ambitions for LB Brent over the next four years, based upon an over-riding vision of

making Brent a great place to live in and visit. The strategy has been devised

following extensive consultation and needs analysis and a number of the priorities

identified relate closely to the future development of leisure centres. Importantly,

consultation with Brent residents identified ‘more local opportunities for sport and

leisure activities’ as the fourth highest priority for improvement across the Council’s

services.

Key priorities and relevant actions are detailed below and are based upon Making

Brent:

A Safe Place - working to reduce environmental crime, actual crime and the fear of

crime and reducing anti-social behaviour through prevention, diversion and

enforcement activities. An identification of crime hotspots within Brent and in relation

to the three centres under review is presented within the following section.

A clean Place - making Brent cleaner through the ‘Big Brent Clean-up’ campaign in

conjunction with local community groups.

A Green Place - increasing recycling, reducing landfill, improving standards of

provision within Brent’s parks.



A Lively Place - access to high-quality, affordable sports facilities to maintain health

and well-being. Key targets include:

o A 4% increase in adult participation in 3 x 30 minutes per week physical

activity.

o An increase in visits to council-owned facilities by young people,

o An increase in the percentage of 5-16 yr olds engaged in 2 hours of PE per

week

o An increase in the use of sports centres and attendance at sports activities

by looked after children and disabled young people in line with LAA

targets.

Local Employment and enterprise - making Brent a location where businesses

want to locate and can succeed and improving the employability of Brent residents

through enhanced skills and experience.

Health and well-being - encouraging and supporting local people to make healthier

choices including increased participation in physical activities.

Help when you need it - providing support to those who require it.

Settled Homes - maintaining the supply of affordable new housing and bringing

more empty properties back into use.

Early Excellence - providing every young child in Brent with the best start to life.

Civic Leadership - championing the interests of Brent and its communities at all

levels.

Community Engagement - working with local people to give them a greater say in

local choices and wishes.

Building our Capacity - planning for an adequate and well-skilled Council

workforce.

A Strategy for Sport and Physical Activity in Brent 2004 - 2009 was produced

with the objective of co-ordinating the delivery of key services and agreeing key

priorities to maximise the opportunities and benefits associated with the

development of sport and physical activity in Brent.

Priorities and actions detailed within the strategy revolve around six key themes

(actions of relevance to the development of the three centres under review are



detailed below and should be considered in context with the remainder of this

review):

Key Theme 1: Promoting the health benefits of an active lifestyle

o Link programmes at Lift projects - particularly at vale Farm.

o Develop and promote opportunities for informal recreation.

Key Theme 2: Increasing awareness of sports opportunities

o Develop online bookings for sports facilities.

Key Theme 3: Ensuring sports facilities are fit for purpose

o Influence regeneration proposals for South Kilburn area to ensure

development of new facilities.

o Provide third swimming pool in Kingsbury area (north of the borough).

o Work with schools / education to ensure improved facilities and enhanced

community use.

o Produce overall plan for facilities (including track) at Vale Farm.

Key Theme 4: Reducing barriers to participation and ensuring equity in

sport

o Promote Brent Leisure card use.

o Ensure DDA compliance.

o Improve access and awareness of access via public transport.

Key Theme 5: Supporting and developing local sports clubs

Key Theme 6: Increasing sports opportunities for young people

o Work with the police and the YOT’s to provide diversionary activitie..

Priority target groups set out within the strategy include: young people, older

people, black and ethnic minority groups, people with disabilities, and women and

girls. Further consideration of the participation levels of these priority groups and the

demographic profile of the borough will take place within the following section.

Success in Brent - Regeneration Annual Review 2005-2006 identifies the main

aim of the Brent Regeneration team to improve the quality of life of all of Brent’s

residents, workers and visitors. Regeneration work is focused within 5 key areas:

Stonebridge (in which Bridge Park Sports Centre is located), Harlesden, St Raphael’s,

Brentfield and Mitchell Brook, Church End and South Kilburn (Charteris Sports Centre



is located further north within the Kilburn ward). Priorities and issues identified

within the Action Plan and focus areas for future development include the following:

o Promoting employment opportunities.

o Promoting renewal in our priority neighbourhoods.

o Reducing fear of crime within priority areas.

o Delivering Wembley.

The following demographic profile (Section Four) provides further clarification of the

above issues and the potential impact of improved facility provision across the

borough.

The Brent Parks Strategy 2004 - 2006 sets out a policy framework for the

development of Brent’s parks over the next five years, linking in with the Council’s

wider strategic priorities. Whilst the remit of this review is to focus upon the potential

development of Brent’s Council-owned leisure centres, the following section

considers the importance of public open space in contributing to increases in informal

(and formal) participation, which is pertinent to our overall review.

The scope of the Parks Strategy includes public parks, public open spaces, children’s

play areas and allotments. The four key themes with associated objectives that have

emerged are provision of parks, maintenance, funding and participation.

Guidance on planning and providing for playing fields for team sports within Brent up

until 2008 is provided within the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008.

Projections for future demand have been made using sports development targets

and a 10% growth in the current Team Generation Rates and should be considered

in the context of borough-wide need. The document makes specific reference within

its key recommendations to the demand case for sports pitch provision at the Vale

Farm Sports Ground:

o All pitches to be retained.

o Additional pitches need to be created in East and South of Brent.

o Schools need to have access to pitches within walking distance and

with affordable prices.

o Brent needs to work with clubs and governing bodies to create more



opportunities for participation.

o The existing Council owned pitches and ancillary facilities in most need

of improvements and upgrading in Brent includes Vale Farm Sports

Ground.

3.10 Sports and Facility Specific Policy

In August 2006, Consultants were instructed to produce a review of Vale Farm Sport

Ground with respect to determining its future management and use. The Vale Farm

Sports Ground Review made a number of key recommendations that are of much

relevance to the future development of the Vale Farm Sports Centre and as

such,have been acknowledged and considered within our own review. The key and

relevant recommendations and issues taken from the Action Plan within the appendix

of the Sports Ground review are set out below:

1) The need to create a consultative forum for the Vale Farm Sports Ground.

2) Increase public awareness of the VF Sports Ground and accessibility as public

open space and install pathways to support additional, jogging, walking and

cycling.

3) Ensure pitch changing facilities (and Sudbury Court Pavilion) are DDA

compliant, fit for purpose and suitable for junior and female use.

4) Further consultation on the markings for the (currently disused) athletics

track from local schools.

5) Explore the potential development of additional facility provision at Vale Farm

Sports Ground including:

a. playground

b. multi-use games area(s)

c. netball centre

d. community football centre (as referenced within the following FA

facilities strategy)

A Masterplan for the Regeneration of South Kilburn:

Charteris Sports Centre, located in the Kilburn ward, sits on the boundary of the

South Kilburn New Deals for Communities area. The South Kilburn Masterplan

identifies the need for an additional sports centre within this area of the borough, the



development of which would have a significant impact on the future options for

Charteris Sports Centre.

Specifically, the South Kilburn Masterplan identifies the Sports Centre to be:

‘a key feature of the existing masterplan and is the most aspirational new

community facility proposed. It would provide an accessible and high quality

venue for both new and existing communities to come together within South

Kilburn.’

The masterplan estimates that the capital cost of a dry-side sports centre with the

facilities envisaged will be in the region of £9 million (based on current day

estimates) with no obvious funding sources identified nor timescales for possible

completion. The South Kilburn NDC recognises that another approach could be to

consider whether there will be any benefit from a combined sports facility with either

a new school or the healthy living centre (both proposed within the Masterplan).

However, the document states that initial work indicates that both options would

severely constrain the type of facility that is deliverable.

3.11 National Governing Body Facility Strategies

The re-development of sports facility provision needs to be aligned to the high level

strategic priorities of the sporting infrastructure. To achieve this, a brief review of the

key objectives and specific priorities of relevant National Governing Body Facility

Strategies is beneficial.

Table 3.1: NGB Strategy Summaries

NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities Amateur Swimming Association

From Armbands to Gold Medals: The National Facilities Strategy for Swimming

• To promote a strategic approach to the development and management of swimming facilities

• To ensure capital and revenue

resources, including National Lottery funds are used effectively to deliver the sports development objectives of the ASA

• To meet the recreational needs of the

community in general

• One 8 lane 50m pool in each quadrant area bounded by the M25 which should be flexible to the needs of the local community



NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities Badminton England

National Badminton Facilities Strategy

• The creation of a network of ‘accredited’ badminton facilities across the country

• To ensue quality facilities exist for

those playing at higher levels of the game alongside structured opportunities for those wishing to learn, play and develop at all levels of the sport

• Optimum facility provision will involve a minimum of one Performance and Development Centre per County and 1 Development Centre per 50,000 population and / or within a 15 minute drive time of anyone within an urban/semi urban area or 20 minutes within a rural are

England Basketball

England Basketball Facilities Strategy (2005 – 2009)

• ‘User Affordability’ • The empowerment of clubs • Clubs are being encouraged to

develop all facets of their organisation to ensure they can continue to not only survive but also to develop in line with National policy for Basketball and sport in general

• Provision of club managed two-basketball court facilities which offer a minimum of 25 peak time hours for basketball at affordable rates

• Developing one

basketball specific facility for each of the eight identified districts in London

England Volleyball

England Volleyball Association Facilities Strategy

• To encourage the building of new centres in areas where few or no existing facilities are available, as part of network provision

• To encourage existing venues to upgrade their facilities

• To identify the need for Regional

Volleyball Centres

• Make volleyball more accessible to greater numbers of young people and also make particular provision for the development of high performance volleyball

The Football Association

The Greater London, London Football Partnership, Facilities Strategy

• Direct investment to areas of greatest need and to where it will provide best value for money

• The definition of areas of greatest need covers locations where there is evidence of economic and football facility deprivation

• The establishment of hub sites known as Community Football Centres in each London borough

British Gymnastics

British Gymnastics Facilities Strategy (June 2006)

• Ensure that the right facilities are provided in the right place at the right time to satisfy the right demand

• 20 HPC/IPC (Performance) clubs with a total of 200 gymnasts training 25-30 hours per week in each discipline

• Each of the HPC/IPC

(Performance) clubsto be based in an international standard facility with affordable



NGB Strategy Objectives Priorities access for a minimum of 25-30 hours priority Performance training per week

UK Athletics Athletics Facilities Planning and Delivery (2007 – 2012)

• To help facility providers (LA’s, schools, colleges, universities and others) recognise what facilities are required, where they should be located and how they might be funded

• To help governing bodies, education

establishments and athletics clubs focus on recognising where there are gaps in provision and how these gaps might be filled

• Providing new facilities that will help to improve participation in Athletics through the provision of modern facilities and equipment

• One outdoor synthetic

track (6 or 8 lanes) per 250, 000 within 20 minutes drives (45 minutes in rural areas)

• One indoor training

centre per 500, 000 people living within 30 minutes drive (45 minutes in rural areas)

3.12 Summaries and Key Themes Matrix

A review of relevant policy and guidance at national, regional and local levels has

highlighted the potential of enhanced sports facility provision across Brent to meet

numerous social objectives across Brent. The importance of the three existing

centres and the justification for any potential improvements are recognised at a

strategic level and specific references to the need for improvements occur regularly

within local policy.

In making any potential improvements to the sport and leisure facility infrastructure

(and providing increased opportunity to participate) any modernisation of the leisure

centre sites would contribute towards a number of social objectives and policies

within Brent. The key themes and regularity with which they occur within the

national, regional and local policy are set out below within Table 3.2. The potential

to make an impact upon these key themes should be considered as the strategic

backdrop for any decision made in context with the future of facility provision in

Brent.

Table 3.2: Strategic Analysis (frequency of key themes occurring in National,

Regional and Local Policy)



Rank Theme Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

1

Improving Health &

Well Being

2

Economic

Development

3

Education, Children &

Young People

4

Increasing

Participation

5

Building Physical

Capacity

6

Environment,

Regeneration &

Building Communities

7 Reducing Crime

8

Building Human

Capacity

9

Improving Levels of

Performance

10 Improving Skills

11 Talent ID

12 Investment in Sport

13 Active Workplaces

Key

National Strategies

Regional Strategies

Local Strategies



4. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE This section of the report sets out the demographic profile of Brent and considers

how that profile may change as the population increases. Ensuring a complete

understanding of the demographic issues faced by local residents is important in

considering how to maximise accessibility, prevent barriers to participation and

capitalise upon the wider value that sport and leisure has to offer. This information

provides vital context to ensure any future development of the three main centres

under review takes place in a manner that reflects local need most appropriately.

Valuable analysis of recent participation findings obtained as part of Sport England’s

Active People Survey (2006) is also presented at the end of this section. Analysis of

the participation profile of Brent includes an evaluation of the impact of key

demographic issues. In particular this helps to determine which social groups are,

and are not, participating in sport and physical activity. This is important in the

context of any potential future development of Charteris, Vale Farm and Bridge Park

specifically and the aim to increase participation more generally across Brent.

4.1 London Borough of Brent - Ward Mapping and Facility Location

Before embarking on a review of the demographic profile of the borough, it is first

useful to identify the locations of the three centres under review. Figure 4.1 below

demonstrates those locations and the wards of Brent.

To provide further context, the location of Willesden Sports Centre has also been

identified. However, the demographic profile focuses on the demographic

characteristics and social issues faced by the borough as a whole and specific to the

local areas surrounding the three centres under specific review. The demography of

the area surrounding Willesden Sports Centre has not been profiled as it was not a

specific focus for this study. Moreover, much of the following data is based upon

2001 census findings, which was collected well in advance of the opening of the

Willesden Sports Centre in 2006.



Figure 4.1: London Borough of Brent wards and the locations of Vale Farm Sports

Centre, Charteris Sports Centre and Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

4.2 London Borough of Brent - Total Population and Population Projections

At the last census (2001) Brent’s population was recorded as 263, 464, growing at a

rate of 3.2% since 1991. This was an increase of 9,014 from the projected mid year

population figure for 2000, placing Brent second only to Tower Hamlets in terms of

population gain. The 2006 mid-year estimate for London Boroughs measured Brent’s

population at 271,400.

4.3 Housing, Key Growth Areas and Population Projections

Recognised by the Government as a Housing Opportunity Borough with substantial

capacity to provide more homes, the 2004 Housing Capacity Study undertaken by

the Mayor of London and LB Brent Planning Department identified the potential

development of an additional 9,146 homes in the period between 2007 and 2017

(using only brownfield sites and existing buildings). A large proportion of this housing

(approximately 1400 affordable homes) are to be located on and around the



Wembley Stadium site. A further 1,500 homes have also been approved as part of

the regeneration strategy for South Kilburn which has the potential to generate

significant increased demand for leisure provision in this area of the borough.

If the plans for additional housing are realised, the impact on the total Brent

Population will be significant. GLA projections estimate the population to grow to

305,400 by 2016 - an increase of approximately 11%. Estimations of ward level

population projections have not been made to date.

4.4 Population Distribution and Density

The demographic maps below (figures 4.2 & 4.3) illustrate how the distribution of

population within Brent changed between 1991 and 2001. These maps are useful as

indicators of population density at a ward level, though the size of the individual

ward must also be taken into account. Where wards are marked in the darkest

shade, 5.5 – 6.1% of Brent’s population reside there, which is the highest band of

population distribution. Population distribution should be taken into account when

assessing levels of demand for facility provision in the borough. Later within this

report (Section 5) cross-referencing population density with current facility provision

(capacity ratio analysis) will help to further identify the particular areas in which

there are too few sport and leisure facilities in comparison with the current density of

residents.

Source: Census 2001 – Ward Profiles for Brent (www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf)

Figure 4.3: Brent Population Density 1991 Figure 4.2: Brent Population Density 2001

http://www.brent.gov.uk/demographic.nsf



As displayed above, the wards with a large population in relation to their

geographical extent include Queensbury, Kilburn, Stonebridge, Mapesbury and

Dudden Hill. The changes in population density between 1991 and the most recent

census in 2001 indicate Stonebridge (south central) in particular as a ward in which a

large number of Brent residents have and continue to reside (15,943 residents in

2001 making it the largest of all Brent wards). Despite a considerably smaller than

average area, Kilburn, to the South East of the borough, contains the second largest

population (14,712) making it the most densely populated ward within the Brent. To

the west, Sudbury contained a total population of 12, 307 in 2001.

4.5 Age Structure

There is a strong correlation between participation in sport and physical activity and

age. Typically participation falls away as people grow older. Brent has a relatively

young population with 25% falling within the 0 to 19 range and 37% in the 20 to 39

range. Conversely, Brent’s pensioners make up 14% of the population, lower than

the Greater London average of 15.5% and the England and Wales average of 18%.

The high proportion of under 40 year olds in Brent (62% of the total population)

provides a large target group for sport and leisure providers, activities and

programming. Stonebridge in particular has the highest percentage of U16 year olds

(27.7%), which, as a key user group, would suggest significant demand for sport

and leisure provision. Interestingly, Sudbury contains the lowest number of residents

in the 16 - 24 age range at present.

4.6 Black and Ethnic Minority Groups

Brent is one of the most culturally diverse boroughs in London. Black and Minority

Ethnic groups (BME) now make up the majority of the population in Brent at 54.7%,

according to GLA projections. This is the second highest of all the London Boroughs

behind Newham. Figures 4.4 and 4.5 below present the distribution of Black and

Minority Ethnic groups across the wards of Brent. BME groups comprise over 70% of

the population in Queensbury, Wembley Central and Alperton. There is a clear

geographical divide; the wards in the south-east corner of Brent are less ethnically

diverse than the rest of the borough, with BME groups making up 33 – 39% of the

population in Mapesbury Brondesbury Park and Queen’s Park (the least ethnically



diverse wards in Brent). In Kilburn the BME population density is less than the

borough average at 39 – 49%, whereas in both Stonebridge and Sudbury the figure

is higher at 60 – 69%.

Figure 4.4: Densities of BME residents

Figure 4.5: Densities of white residents





4.8 Education and Skills

Approximately a quarter of the Brent population possess no qualifications at present.

Figure 4.6 below highlights the wards in which a particularly high percentage of the

population (aged 16 – 74) have no qualifications. In Stonebridge, Harlesden and

Wembley central 29 – 33% of people have no qualifications. 32.6% of Stonebridge

residents have no qualifications, whilst the figure is lower for Kilburn (24.3%) and

Sudbury (24.2%). This can be directly linked, as a contributing factor, to high levels

of unemployment in Stonebridge and Harlesden. The wards with the highest

percentage (over 35%) of residents with a degree or higher qualifications are

Northwick Park to the west and Mapesbury and Brondesbury Park to the south east.

Figure 4.6: Density of Brent residents aged 16 - 74 with no qualifications


4.9 Economic Activity

The previous section (Strategic Context) emphasises that participation in sport and

physical activity has considerable potential to reduce unemployment, both directly

through the creation of new jobs and indirectly through improving physical health

and well being and enhancing valuable skills (communication skills, leadership etc.)

Across Brent 65.5% of residents aged 16-74 were registered as economically active,

5% of whom were unemployed. Figure 4.7 below indicates areas of Brent in which

unemployment levels are particularly high. In 2001, unemployment among males in




Stonebridge (9.8%) was the highest in the borough. Kilburn also showed high levels

of male unemployment at 8.7%, whilst the figure was lower in Sudbury at 5.6%. The

figures for female unemployment again reveal that Stonebridge has the highest

levels in Brent (6.2%) and Kilburn is ranked third in the borough in this respect

(4.5%).

Figure 4.7: Densities of unemployment within Brent


4.10 Income Deprivation

Figures 4.8 and 4.9 below, taken from the 2007 NHS Health Profile for Brent

(www.communityhealthprofiles.info), show the variation in the percentage of people

on low incomes compared to national trends and within the borough itself. In relation

to the whole of England Brent is an income-deprived borough, with the majority of

wards falling within the 20% most income-deprived areas in England.


http://www.communityhealthprofiles.info/



Figure 4.8: Income deprivation - national

Figure 4.9: Income deprivation - local

Within Brent the most income-deprived areas in 2003 were the Stonebridge and

Harlesden wards, as well as parts of Kilburn, Kensal Green and Willesden Green.

These areas made up the most income-deprived fifth of Brent. To ensure that cost

does not become a barrier to participation, it is vital that pricing policies for facilities

currently located or planned for these areas are reflective of the socio-economic

status of local residents.



4.11 Health Status

The previous section (Strategic Context) discussed in greater detail the major impact

that participation in sport and physical activity can have on health and well being.

The 2001 Census found that 70% of Brent’s population is in good health, with 21%

rated fairly good and 9% as not good. In the Wembley Central ward over 36% of

households have one or more persons with a limiting or long term illness, which is

the highest in the borough (as shown within Figure 4.11). Within Queensbury and

Stonebridge the figure is also high at approximately 34 – 36%.

Areas such as these, where a large proportion of people suffer from serious health

problems, would certainly benefit from the improvement of sports facilities and

increased participation in physical activity. Figure 4.12 shows the wards in which

high levels of obesity are estimated (based upon the demographic profile rather than

the actual prevalence) and as can be seen, this is something of an issue for the

Stonebridge ward in particular. In the context of facility provision, the benefits of

locating a facility in areas of poor health quality have the potential to add

considerable social and economic value, not least through the reduction of healthcare

costs and by lowering sick days lost through ill health.


Figure 4.11: Densities of Brent population with a long-term limiting illness




Figure 4.12: Synthetic Estimates of Obesity

Source: Office for National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk)

4.12 Car Ownership

Car ownership levels in Brent are relatively low (approximately 37% of households

do not own a vehicle) with some areas of the borough in which vehicle ownership is

very low.

Table 4.1: Car Ownership in Brent

Number of Cars per Household in Brent (2001)

% ownership

No Car 37.3%

1 Car 42.6% 2 Car 16.2%

3+ Cars 3.9%

The highest level of ‘non’ car ownership can be found in Kilburn where over half of

households (56.5%) do not own a vehicle at present. Car ownership in Stonebridge

is also considerably lower than the borough average with 47.8% of households

without access to a vehicle. Fewer Sudbury residents are without access to a car,

33.6% in total, though this remains a considerable proportion of the ward

population.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/



Levels of car ownership raise important issues about access to sport and leisure

facilities, increasing the need for both quality public transport links and facility

provision in locations that are easily accessible by foot or cycle. The importance of

facility provision within an acceptable walking distance is significant and has the

potential to have a considerable impact on the usage of facilities. To emphasise the

point (which will be discussed in greater detail within Section 5) facility provision

within a walking catchment (1 mile / 20 minute walk) is an indicator used within the

CPA assessment.

Further evaluation of the relationship between facility access, public transport links

and attendance by foot will be made as part of the site specific reviews detailed

within Section Six of this report.

4.13 Crime and Safety

In the period August 2006 -7 the Metropolitan Police recorded a total of 28, 710

crimes in Brent, a 15.3% decrease from the previous year’s total of 33, 910 total

offences. There has been a significant reduction in ‘violence against the person’ and

just two cases of homicide in comparison with six in the previous year. Across all

London boroughs, Brent is ranked about mid way in terms of rates of crime per 1000

of the population. Town centres tend to witness higher levels of crime, meaning that

areas such as Wembley, Harlesden, Neasden and Kilburn are specific crime hotspots.

More crime takes place in the most deprived areas of Brent, for example the

Stonebridge, Harlesden and Carlton wards. An important statistic linked to the issue

of crime and safety is that young people in Brent are over-represented as both

victims and offenders. As mentioned previously, research has highlighted the strong

and direct link between participation in sport and physical activity and the reduction

of crime and the causes of crime. From this perspective, demand for increased

opportunities is greatest in those deprived wards, such as Stonebridge and

Harlesden, where crime levels are high.



4.14 Participation in Sport and Leisure Activities

Having reviewed the demographic profile of the borough, this report now turns to

levels of participation in sport and leisure activities and the inter relationship with the

demographic characteristics of Brent. To provide further clarity of the factors and

issues that may be affecting participation levels locally, analysis and comparison has

been made with Brent’s statistical and geographical neighbours as well as those

London Boroughs which achieve the very highest levels of participation currently.

This section has important implications for facility demand and should be read in

context with the findings of the borough-wide facility audit - Section 5 of this Review.

4.15 Active People Survey (2006) - London Borough of Brent

The recent findings of the Active People Survey (2006), conducted by Sport England,

provide the most up to date assessment of levels of sports participation within the

country and are an excellent resource in helping to inform potential demand for new

facility provision.

A comprehensive survey of 1000 people (over the age of 16) in every Local Authority

Nationwide has produced in-depth findings about sports participation. The over-

arching measure of participation used is the percentage of the population completing

at least 3 x 30 minute sessions of moderate participation in a sport and leisure

activity per week. The government’s optimistic target of achieving 70% participation

by 2020 will be measured on this indicator.

The depth of the survey conducted provided comprehensive findings on a range of

other associated issues including (among others):

o Participation and non-participation

o Sports specific participation

o Volunteering

o Sports Club membership

The findings of the survey can be reviewed against a vast number of demographic

indicators (age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic activity etc.) to isolate possible

factors that are having an impact on levels of participation within Brent.



Furthermore, findings can be compared against geographically and demographically

similar boroughs to further investigate factors that may be having an impact from

borough to borough.

According to the Active People Survey, Brent had an 18.0% adult participation rate

in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per week. This is a low participation rate (3.0%

below the national average and 3.3% below the average for London), placing Brent

in the bottom quartile of all local authorities nationwide. There is clearly much work

to be done with regard to widening participation in sport if Brent is to meet the

government target of 70% participation by 2020.

Figure 4.13: KPI 1 - Brent participation rates in comparison with all Local

Authorities

Unfortunately, statistical participation data is currently unavailable at anything lower

than Local Authority level. The Active People diagnostic tool does however provide

maps of each LA identifying overall participation (3 x 30 mins) at Super Output Area

level. The following map, Figure 4.13 identifies the variances in participation levels

across the borough and, as can be seen, there are some pockets of high and low

participation levels. Figure 4.13 also demonstrates the locations of the three centres

under review alongside an approximate catchment of 1.6km from each centre.

Willesden Sports Centre has not been identified since the centre was not open at the



time of data collection in 2006. It is very likely that the facility will have an impact on

participation levels recorded within the next round of the Active People Survey.

Figure 4.14: London Borough of Brent Participation (3x30) Estimates by Middle

Super Output Area (Location of three centres and 1.6km catchments identified)

Please note: Willesden sports centre has not been included within this map as the

facility was not open at the time of the Active People survey in 2006.

As shown above, there are considerable variances in participation levels with pockets

of high and low participation. Most prominent is the band of low (bottom quartile 10

- 18%) participation that runs as a band directly down the centre of the borough. In

context with three centres under review, the catchments of all three centres cover

areas of the borough in which participation is lowest. This is most notably the case

Vale Farm Sports Centre

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre

Charteris Sports Centre



with Bridge Park, the entire catchment of which scores within the bottom quartile of

participation (it should be noted however, that not all areas of that particular ward

and the borough are populated). When reviewing the participation map against the

demographic characteristics considered earlier, trends in relation to ethnicity, income

deprivation and unemployment become indicators of low participation. These trends

will be emphasised in greater detail shortly.

4.16 Other Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)

As established earlier, alongside a measure of weekly participation, the Active People

Survey has recorded data relating to a broad range of other sport and leisure related

indicators. Brent’s scores for Key Performance Indicators 1-6 are set out below

(Table 4.2) against the National and regional averages.

Table 4.2: Brent KPI’s 1-6

KPI’s 1-6 Brent

(LA)

London National

KPI 1 - At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate

participation (all adults)

18.0%

21.3% 21.0%%

KPI 2 - At least 1 hour a week volunteering to support sport (all

adults) 2.7%

3.5% 4.7%

KPI 3 - Club member (all adults) 20.5% 26.2% 25.1%

KPI 4 - Received tuition from an instructor or coach in last 12

months (all adults) 13.4%

19.2% 18.0%

KPI 5 - Taken part in organised competitive sport in last 12

months (all adults) 10.3%

13.1% 15.0%

KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all adults) 52.7% 66.1% 69.5%

Key Performance Indicators 2-6 suggest some reasons why Brent lags behind the

average London and national rates for sports participation. Brent is in the bottom

national quartile for club membership, tuition and competition rates. Also of

importance, satisfaction rates with local sports provision in Brent are very low; just

52.7% of adults were satisfied with provision, 13% less than the London average

and 17% less than the national satisfaction rate. This suggests a very poor public

http://www.webreport.se/apd/2/rt1_main.aspx#tid:101












perception of not just facility provision but activity programming and the sport and

leisure infrastructure generally across the borough. However, as previously noted,

Willesden Sports Centre was not open at the time of the survey and the inclusion of

this state of the art facility is likely to have a positive impact on the ‘satisfaction with

sports provision’ score.

4.17 Zero Days Participation and Demographic Characteristics

A further Key Performance Indicator (Table 4.3 below) that holds much relevance is

‘zero days’ participation - 56.5% of the Brent population had not undertaken any

physical activity within the four weeks preceding the survey. This is considerably

greater than both the regional (49.5%) and national averages (50.6%), and provides

both an indicator of the size of a key target group and a stark reminder of the

difficulty of the task ahead if Government targets of 70% of the population are to be

physically active 3 x30 minutes a week by 2020.

Table 4.3: London Borough of Brent - Zero Days Participation

Zero days - 30 mins moderate participation (all adults) Brent (LA) London

(REG)

National

All 56.5% 49.5% 50.6%

Male 52.3% 44.7% 45.8%

Female 60.7% 54.2% 55.2%

16 to 34 45.6% 36.6% 33.7%

35 to 54 54.7% 45.2% 47.6%

55 and over 75.1% 71.8% 71.0%

White 51.8% 47.5% 50.3%

Non white 61.1% 55.2% 54.5%

Limiting disability 76.6% 76.8% 76.5%

No limiting disability 54.0% 45.5% 45.7%

NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 48.8% 40.2% 42.1%

NS-SEC 3 (B) 63.2% 54.4% 51.9%

NS-SEC 4 (C1) 52.9% 48.4% 50.9%

NS-SEC 5,6,7,8 (C2DE) 66.9% 63.4% 60.0%



A demographic breakdown of participation levels in Brent provides further illustration

of the particular groups which a drive to widen participation should target. Female

non-participation is particularly high at 60.7% (in comparison with 54% across the

capital) and, as will be discussed in more detail shortly, socio-economic status

provides a clear indicator of non-participation, with some 66% of social classes C2DE

having not participated in any sport or leisure activity for 30 minutes in the four

weeks preceding interview. Across all socio-economic groups the Brent population

exceeds the regional and national averages for non-participation. The socio-economic

group B is certainly a potential target group for increasing participation since at

63.2% non-participation it is well above regional and national levels for ‘zero days’

participation.

Ethnicity also has a considerable affect on participation. The percentage of the non-

white adult population of Brent not participating (61.1%) is considerably higher than

the regional (55.2%) and national (54.5%) rates of non-participation for BME

groups.

4.18 Satisfaction with Sports Provision and Demographic Characteristics

Returning to satisfaction with sports provision, and applying the same demographic

breakdown reveals an anomaly in participation levels and satisfaction. Those groups

that participate least frequently appear to be most satisfied with the existing

provision. Satisfaction with local provision is highest with social classes C2DE

however, as identified above, less than a third of this sector of the community had

participated in any activity in the weeks preceding survey. The indication is that

without knowledge of the quality of local provision, respondents are unable and

unlikely to record their dissatisfaction. This trend is also evident from the regional

and national figures which show that the highest satisfaction levels come from

groups that participate less, such as those aged 55 and over and the less wealthy

socio-economic groups.

Table 4.4: Satisfaction with Local Sports Provision

KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all

adults)

Brent (LA) London

(REG)

National

All 52.7% 66.1% 69.5%



KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all

adults)

Brent (LA) London

(REG)

National

Male 55.8% 65.2% 69.2%

Female 49.6% 67.0% 69.9%

16 to 34 53.8% 64.1% 65.8%

35 to 54 49.0% 64.6% 68.5%

55 and over 57.5% 72.5% 74.8%

White 50.7% 66.2% 70.0%

Non white 54.4% 65.6% 64.8%

Limiting disability 45.7% 63.4% 66.0%

No limiting disability 53.4% 66.4% 70.1%

NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 46.0% 64.0% 68.9%

NS-SEC 3 (B) 49.3% 66.4% 69.6%

NS-SEC 4 (C1) 57.0% 69.0% 70.8%

NS-SEC 5,6,7,8 (C2DE) 59.0% 68.8% 70.2%

The C2DE socio-economic group represents an excellent opportunity for the future

evaluation of the quality of sport and facility provision across Brent. As a clear

priority group to target to increase participation levels - satisfaction with sports

provision amongst classes C2DE should remain the same or increase as users gain

experience of and are therefore better placed to pass judgement.

4.18 Brent’s Geographical and Statistical Neighbours

The Active People survey allows an analysis of Brent’s geographical and statistical

neighbours, those with similar scores on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation, to see

how Brent compares.

4.18.1 Geographical Neighbours

Brent’s participation rate is lower than those of the neighbouring local authorities

(LA’s). Table 4.5 below identifies that only Harrow has similarly low levels of

participation whilst Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster

and Camden score considerably higher.

Table 4.5: KPI 1 - London Borough of Brent - Geographical Neighbours





Percent

Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 27.9

Hammersmith & Fulham (LA) 25.4

Westminster (LA) 25.1

Camden (LA) 24.6

Barnet (LA) 21.7

Ealing (LA) 21.2

Harrow (LA) 18.6

Brent (LA) 18

London (REG) 21.3

National (NAT) 21

A number of important factors contribute to the variation from borough to borough,

not least demographics - wealth, social and ethnicity as well as numerous other

factors - facility provision, community sport infrastructure, transport links and open

space to name but a few. Further analysis of theses key factors and the potential

impact on participation in Brent will take place shortly.

4.18.2 Statistical Neighbours

Turning to Brent’s statistical neighbours (based on IMD score), Table 4.6 below

demonstrates that Brent has the lowest participation rate across this particular

grouping. Sefton and Blyth Valley, despite sharing similar deprivation scores with

Brent, have participation rates above the national and London averages.

Table 4.6: KPI 1 - London Borough of Brent – Statistical Neighbours



Percent

Sefton (LA) 21.7





Blyth Valley (LA) 21.5

North Tyneside (LA) 20.7

Kirklees (LA) 18.7

Brent (LA) 18

London (REG) 21.3

National (NAT) 21

This situation can be explained in part by Brent’s comparatively low club membership

rates. As demonstrated within Table 4.7 below, club membership in Brent is

considerably lower than the four closest statistical neighbours.

Table 4.7: KPI 3 - London Borough of Brent – Statistical Neighbours

KPI 3 - Club member (all adults)

Percent

Sefton (LA) 28.2

North Tyneside (LA) 26.9

Blyth Valley (LA) 25.8

Kirklees (LA) 24.8

Brent (LA) 20.3

London (REG) 21.3

National (NAT) 21

As identified above, a key element of Brent’s Active People Survey results is the lack

of satisfaction with local sports provision. This point is further emphasised by a

comparison with satisfaction among IMD neighbours. The satisfaction rate in Brent is

significantly less than that of all five IMD neighbours and remains a critical point for

improvement. Kirkless and Blyth Valley have satisfaction rates well above the

national average and 20-25% above that of Brent, which is clearly a very large

margin.



4.19 Participation Rates and Top Scoring London Boroughs

Brent is currently ranked 31st of 33 London boroughs in relation to overall

participation levels, a full 11.8% below the participation rate of top-scoring

Richmond. In London only Barking & Dagenham and Newham have fewer adults

taking part in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per week. This is obviously an area

of concern for Brent which must be addressed in the future. To help understand the

issues the borough faces it is useful to consider some of the influencing factors that

may contribute to higher levels of participation, factors that LB Brent should consider

when planning to achieve future increases in participation levels.

4.19.1 Facility Stock and Satisfaction with Provision

The following section of this report (Borough-wide Facility Audit) reviews in detail,

the current status of sports facility provision in Brent. Resident satisfaction with

sports facility provision is below average which may be having an impact on

participation rates. Table 4.8 below compares satisfaction with facility provision

against the London boroughs scoring highest for participation.

Table 4.8: Top scoring London boroughs and satisfaction with local sports provision

Local Authority

AP Score Satisfaction

Richmond upon Thames (LA) 29.8 72.8

Kingston upon Thames (LA) 25.0 71.1

Wandsworth (LA) 27.2 69.2

Westminster (LA) 25.1 68.7

Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 27.9 68.1

Brent (LA) 18.0 52.7

Table 4.8 clearly illustrates a strong correlation between satisfaction with sports

provision and levels of participation. Top scoring Richmond has the highest level of

satisfaction (72.8%), and as a general rule satisfaction levels increase with adult

participation rates.



It should be noted that the reverse of this trend does not apply so clearly and it does

not follow that low participation always equates to poor satisfaction with provision.

For example the London Borough of Newham has a 3 x 30 Active People score of just

14.5% yet satisfaction with sports provision stands at 72%.

In Brent, participation and satisfaction rates are both notably low and future

improvements in satisfaction with sports provision should correlate with an increase

in participation. These two indicators are closely related since both are to a large

extent dictated by facility provision at borough level. When few people are

participating in sport and physical activity it is often the case that quality facilities

are not readily available, and the level of satisfaction with local sports provision is

correspondingly low. In Brent, at the time of the Active People survey in 2006, the

new Willesden Sports Centre had not yet been opened, leaving only one community

accessible swimming pool available. It seems highly likely that the opening of this

facility will have had a significant impact on both satisfaction with sports provision

and participation levels generally.

4.19.2 Green space

Clearly, leisure facility stock and satisfaction with sports facility provision are

important in determining participation levels. However, the impact of poor facility

provision can only affect those residents who have access to or do use leisure

facilities.

When the Active People Survey was produced, some 56% of the Brent population

had not undertaken 30 minutes of moderate participation in the 4 weeks preceding

interview. Thus, this group of people must become engaged in physical activity first

and foremost, a task which should not be viewed simply in terms of improving

existing facilities. To achieve higher levels of participation there may be a real need

to move away from the more traditional forms of sport and leisure activity.

London’s parks and open spaces play host to a diverse range of formal and informal

activities. Merit therefore lies in analysing the correlation between green space and

participation levels to determine future priorities for LB Brent.



Table 4.9: Green space and participation rates

Per person Borough Population AP

score

Total Area

(m2)

Green

space

% of

Total

area

Parks &

Open

Space (m2)

Green

space

Parks &

open

space

Richmond 172,395 29.8 58,552,790 29,721,240 50.8 5,170,000 172m2 29m2

Kensington 159,001 27.9 12,366,600 1,868,890 15.1 406,000 12 m2 2.5m2

Wandsworth 260, 503 27.2 34,850,660 9,383,920 26.9 3,400,000 36m2 13m2

Lambeth 266,336 25.6 26,980,960 4,655,500 17.3 2,632,000 17m2 9.8 m2

Brent 263, 464 18.0 43,314,730 9,504,730 22.0 4,555,000 36m2 17.2m2

As Table 4.9 demonstrates, there is a considerable amount of green and open space

across Brent. In relation to the top scoring boroughs, only Richmond has a higher

area of parks and open space per person. This reinforces the importance of this

resource and the need to promote physical activity and leisure activities, whether

informal or formal, within local parks and open spaces.

4.19.3 Cycling

Continuing the review of factors with potential influence over participation levels,

there is value in reviewing cycling levels within Brent, again against the top-scoring

London Boroughs.

Table 4.10: percentage of the population completing a 30 minute continuous cycle

ride in the 4 weeks preceding interview

Completed one 30 min continuous cycle in the 4

weeks preceding interview

Local Authority %

Richmond upon Thames (LA) 20.9

Hammersmith & Fulham (LA) 17.0

Kingston upon Thames (LA) 16.4

Lambeth (LA) 16.2

Wandsworth (LA) 15.2



Completed one 30 min continuous cycle in the 4

weeks preceding interview

Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 11.9

Merton (LA) 11.4

Brent (LA) 9.2

As can be seen, there is a pronounced difference between cycling levels in Brent and

those in the top scoring London Boroughs. As table 4.10 demonstrates, in Richmond,

more than twice as many people as in Brent had completed a one 30 minute cycle in

the four weeks preceding interview. Like Brent, other low scoring London boroughs

have low cycling levels. For example in five of the six lowest scoring London

boroughs for overall participation, less than 10% of the population met the same 30

minute cycling indicator.

Improving cycling networks across Brent and increasing access to facilities (not just

sports facilities) via cycle may prove an important means of increasing participation

(in both cycling and other forms of physical activity). Thus cycling is not only a

rewarding sporting activity, but also a means of increasing accessibility to other

forms of activity. It should therefore be an area high on Brent’s list of priorities for

developing participation and facility provision within the borough. Close working

between the LB Brent Sports Service department and the Planning and Transport

teams at Brent should be conducted to co-ordinate improvements in context with the

development of new leisure facilities.

4.20 Brent - Sports Specific Participation Levels

Having reviewed potential factors generally, it is now useful to turn to specific sports

participation levels. The Active People survey provides a comprehensive review of

sports specific participation levels, identifying the percentage of the population at a

national, regional and local (authority) level that had participated in a particular

sport within the 4 weeks preceding survey.

The findings are highly valuable in helping to provide an indication of the demand for

specific activities and so demand for specific sports facilities. The findings should

therefore be considered in context with the catchment analysis (Section Five) of this



report. Table 4.11 below sets out the findings against the National and regional

averages.

Table 4.11: Sports specific participation Levels – sports accommodated in sports

hall and swimming pools

Participation in 'Badminton' in last four weeks

Participation in 'Basketball' in last four weeks

Participation in ‘Volleyball’ in last four weeks

Percent Percent Percent A National

(NAT) 2.2 A National


(NAT) 0.2 B London

(REG) 1.9 B London

(REG) 1.1 B London

(REG) 0.2 C Brent

(LA) 0.9 C Brent

(LA) 1.5 C Brent

(LA) 0.2

Participation in 'Football (include 5 and 6-a-side) [indoors & outdoors]' in last four weeks

Participation in 'Swimming / Diving [INDOORS]' in last four weeks

Percent Percent A National


(NAT) 12.2 B London

(REG) 7.6 B London

(REG) 11.5 C Brent

(LA) 7.1 C Brent

(LA) 9.5

As the figures show, at a borough-wide level Brent is on the whole below average in

terms of participation in key sports accommodated within the major facility types at

the three centres: sports halls, swimming pools and health and fitness studios (and

STP’s). Basketball has the highest participation levels in Brent, at double the national

average and also above the London average. Patterns of swimming, football and

volleyball in general reflect national and regional trends, though the score for

badminton comes in at less than half the national and regional benchmark.

Table 4.12 below sets out the participation levels within the borough for key health

and fitness activities and dance studio based exercise.



Table 4.12: Sports specific participation – health and fitness / dance studio based

activities

Participation in Health & Fitness based activities

Participation in dance studio based activities

Percent Percent A National


(NAT) 5.8 B London

(REG) 4.2 B London

(REG) 6.8 C Brent

(LA) 4.7 C Brent

(LA) 7.1

Brent scores above the national and London averages for involvement in both health

and fitness and dance based activities. Participation in dance based activities is

greater in London than the nation as a whole and greater still in Brent at 7.1%.

Please note: Active People provides numerous sub-categories for these activity areas

and the following have been combined to provide overall participation figures.

Health and Fitness Activities Dance Studio Activities

Body building

Cross training

Exercise bike / exercise machine /

spinning class

Health and Fitness

Keepfit / keep fit / sit ups

Step machine Weight training

Weightlifting

Aerobics

Body combat / cardio kick

Body pump

Conditioning activities / circuit training

Dance exercise

Keepfit / keep fit / sit ups

Pilates / Yogalates

Yoga

4.21 Demographic Profile and Participation Summary

Brent is a large borough with a population that is set to grow considerably over the

forthcoming years. Current population densities vary with the highest level found in

Stonebridge.

The current population of Brent is highly diverse, and a younger than average

population provides an immediate and obvious target group for increasing

participation in sport and leisure activities. The importance of encouraging greater

levels of activity amongst Brent’s elderly residents should also not be overlooked.



The borough faces higher than average levels of unemployment whilst academic

achievement in some areas of the borough remains an issue. Both are contributing

factors to high levels of income deprivation in some of the less privileged areas of

Brent. Significant health inequalities exist in Brent, pockets in which mortality rates

and ill health are well above average are clearly apparent. Increased emphasis on

the importance of participation opportunities for formal and informal activities to

combat ill health should remain a key priority.

In relation to the location of the existing centres, the importance of publicly

accessible facilities in Stonebridge (currently Bridge Park Leisure Centre) in particular

is of high importance. Stonebridge (and the neighbouring wards of Harlesden,

Alperton and Toykington) contain high levels of crime, higher than average

unemployment, low levels of qualifications and income. Poor health is also a major

problem in this area. The south of Kilburn (Charteris Sports Centre) also faces

problems with crime, unemployment and high levels of income deprivation.

As has been demonstrated, many of the demographic characteristics correlate with

low levels of participation emphasising the strategic need for facility provision in

these locations and the positive benefits that increased activity can bring through

improving participation levels. Equally, an understanding of the demographics and

impact on participation levels borough-wide emphasises the importance of ensuring

that those facilities reflect the specific needs of the local population and are fully

affordable, accessible and popular with local people.



5. LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY

OVERVIEW AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Introduction

Section 4 of this Review considered the demographic profile of the borough,

participation levels and the manner in which the two interlink. Throughout, this has

been set in context with the location of the three council owned facilities under

review.

This process has identified various factors in relation to the perceived demand for the

three centres in-situ but there are of course a number of other facilities borough-

wide that are accessible to Brent residents (not least the Willesden Sports Centre

which, because of its recent construction, has not been directly reviewed as part of

this study).

A strategic review of the impact and effectiveness of the three centres would not be

possible without considering borough-wide facility provision. An analysis of current

and planned sources of facility supply within this section of the report provides a

theoretical assessment of the demand for the three centres in context with other

facilities within the borough.

5.2 Approach

This Review utilises strategic tools (Active Places Power Capacity Ratios) and reviews

the findings of the Sport England Facilities Planning Model (which was commissioned

alongside this Review and the findings of which are incorporated into this report) to

provide a comprehensive picture of facility provision now and in the forthcoming

years as the Brent population (and therefore demand for facility provision) changes.

Throughout, facility provision has also been reviewed in context with the Choice and

Opportunity Indicator of the CPA Assessment.

Through the combination of these sources this Review considers issues regarding the

current levels of supply (and in some cases demand). In doing so, this section of the

report reviews the existing site locations of the three centres strategically and

considers the potential impact and need for any re-development of facilities in-situ



and in context with existing and planned facilities elsewhere in the borough (and

where relevant, neighbouring boroughs).

5.2.1 Active Places Power - Capacity Ratio’s

Sport England’s comprehensive nationwide database of sports facilities ‘Active Places

Power’ allows the generation of a capacity ratio based upon the frequency of a

particular facility per every 1000 population within a particular local authority ward

or borough. The capacity ratio generated gives an indication of current provision

levels in relation to the existing population, which can then be compared against

local, regional and national averages. For the purposes of this study, the following

sports facility types have been analysed:

1. Sports halls

2. Swimming pools

3. Health and fitness facilities

4. Indoor tennis courts

5. Athletics tracks

6. Indoor bowls rinks

7. Synthetic turf pitches

8. Grass pitches (capacity ratio analysis unavailable)

Calculating a capacity ratio on the basis of future population projections also

provides a useful insight into future levels of deficiency or surplus for a particular

facility type (assuming no further investment into provision was to take place). It

should be noted that the future capacity calculated will be compared against current

regional averages for facility provision - there are no projections for future facility

provision at a regional or national level. A future rise in regional levels of provision

has the potential to exacerbate a deficiency or reduce any level of surplus. This

analysis also assumes that the Active Places Power database is up to date in terms of

those facilities which are included. As a result, this information alone cannot be

utilised to fully inform strategic priorities. It is, however, extremely beneficial in

highlighting any particular current (and future) anomalies in relation to levels of

provision that may require further consideration and redress.



5.2.2 Facilities Planning Model / Active Places Power - Supply and Demand

Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM) provides a step further in relation to

analysis of facility provision. The FPM evaluates the capacity and availability of each

facility during opening hours and sets this against the demographic profile of the

population (and therefore the propensity of a percentage of the population to

participate) within a recognised catchment of the facility (1.6km). In doing so, a

measure of the level of demand met can be established. Conversely, the resulting

level of ‘unmet demand’ (population that cannot get access to a sports hall whether

as a result of location or programming) proves valuable in evaluating the need for

further sports facility provision and the locations in which that need is greatest.

This measurement is not restricted to borough boundaries. FPM modelling applies to

a designated study area (typically the neighbouring boroughs of the borough in

which the FPM is being run) and takes into account the likely import and export of

demand cross borough. In addition, the facilities planning model allows analysis of

different scenarios such as the impact of planned facility provision or the closure of

existing facilities (please see Appendix 2 for the FPM brief providing details of the

requested scenarios and planned facilities included for future modelling for this

review).

The supply and demand function of Active Places Power runs on a similar yet less

comprehensive premise. Whilst it does provide a useful snapshot of supply versus

demand within a particular ward or borough, it does not take into account export and

import of demand cross borough, nor does it allow the application of differing

scenarios.

5.2.3 The CPA Assessment - Choice and Opportunity Indicator

The Choice and Opportunity Indicator of the CPA Assessment is underpinned by one

of the core aims of Sport England’s Framework for Sport - increasing the opportunity

for people to become more active. The indicator looks at choice in terms of travel

time to a range of different quality facilities, using a walking catchment of 1.6km (1

mile) in urban areas. This distance has been selected on the basis of previous

surveys which have identified that the majority of facility users will travel for up to

20 minutes by foot in urban areas.



The indicator measures the percentage of the population that are within 1.6km of at

least three different facility types (from a list of six types) of which one must meet a

recognised quality assurance standard (Quest, ISO 9001:2000, Investors in

Excellence, Charter Mark or Green Flag). Within the six facility types are a number of

key facilities proposed as part of the existing / proposed mix of facilities at the three

centres under review:

o Swimming pools

o Sports halls

o Health and fitness suites

o Grass Pitches

o STP’s

o Golf courses

The current distribution of accredited facilities across Brent and surrounding

boroughs is set out below within Figure 5.1. It is anticipated by LB Brent that both

Bridge Park and Willesden Sport Centre will gain Quest accreditation by the end of

2007. As can be seen, all three centres under review are significant in catering for a

sizeable catchment of Brent. The central and north areas of the borough contain an

obvious shortfall of accredited provision at present and in fact, as will be

demonstrated shortly, provision of any type.

Figure 5.1: Sport England Venues and accredited sites plus Bridge Park and

Willesden Sports Centre



Whilst the Choice and Opportunity indicator is clearly of importance, it is the

underpinning concept of a broad ranging facility provision that is locally accessible to

all residents (ideally by foot) that is key to the following analysis.

5.3 London Borough of Brent - Facilities Audit and Analysis

5.3.1 Sports Halls

Turning to the existing stock of sports facilities across the borough, Brent currently

contains 29 sports hall (inclusive of all halls - one badminton court upwards) venues

providing a combined total of 18023m2 or 115 badminton courts. The geographical

distribution of those facilities is set out within Figure 5.2 below. Within the following

map (and all subsequent maps) a 1.6km catchment has been applied to each facility,

where facility provision is accessible on a pay and play basis, the catchment is

displayed with a light blue infill. Catchments for those facilities that are for private

use only are displayed with an orange catchment. The corresponding table (Table

5.1) provides further detail.

Figure 5.2: All Brent sports halls, 1.6km catchments and facility access identified



Table 5.1: All Brent sports halls - further detail

Map Point Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Access

A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG Sudbury Ward 5 Local Authority Pay and Play

B BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE

NW10 0RG

Stonebridge Ward 5

Local Authority Pay and Play

C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX

Willesden Green Ward 6


D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET Kilburn Ward 3 Local Authority Pay and Play

1

MOBERLY SPORTS & EDUCATION CENTRE (temporarily closed) W10 4AH

Queens Park Ward 6

Local Authority

Sports Club / Community Association

2 CHALKHILL PRIMARY SCHOOL SPORTS HALL HA9 9YP Barnhill Ward 2

Community school Pay and Play

3 JOHN KELLY BOYS' TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE NW2 7SN Dollis Hill Ward 3

Foundation School Private Use

4 OAKINGTON MANOR SCHOOL HA9 6NF

Tokyngton Ward 4

Foundation School Pay and Play

5 MENORAH HIGH SCHOOL FOR GIRLS NW2 7BZ Dollis Hill Ward 3

Other Independent School Private Use

6 PRESTON MANOR HIGH SCHOOL HA9 8NA Preston Ward 2


7 THE COPLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL HA9 7DU

Wembley Central Ward 5


8 JFS SCHOOL HA3 9TE Barnhill Ward 12

Voluntary Aided School


9 KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) NW9 9AT Fryent Ward 5

Foundation School


10 CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY LANGUAGE COLLEGE NW10 4EP

Kensal Green Ward 4

Voluntary Aided School Private Use

11 GROVE PARK SCHOOL NW9 0JY Queensbury Ward -

Community Special School Private Use

12 HAY LANE SCHOOL NW9 0JY Queensbury Ward 2

Community Special School Private Use

13 CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL HA3 0UH Kenton Ward 2 Foundation School Pay and Play

14 ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL STANLEY AVENUE HA0 4JE Alperton Ward 1




Map Point Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Access

15 CARDINAL HINSLEY HIGH SCHOOL NW10 3RN

Kensal Green Ward 3

Voluntary Aided School Private Use

16 CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST

Willesden Green Ward 6 Academies


17 WEMBLEY HIGH TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE HA0 3NT

Northwick Park Ward 4

Community school Private Use

18 BARHAM PRIMARY SCHOOL SPORTS HALL HA0 4RQ Sudbury Ward 2

Community school


19 ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL (Lower) HA0 4PW



20 QUEENS PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL NW6 7BQ

Brondesbury Park Ward 5


21 AL-SADIQ AND AL-ZAHRA SCHOOLS NW6 6PF

Queens Park Ward 2

Other Independent School Private Use

22 UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP


Higher Education Institutions Pay and Play

23 ISLAMIA GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL NW6 6PE

Queens Park Ward 1

Other Independent School


24 KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (Upper) NW9 9JR

Queensbury Ward 5

Other Independent School


25 CHALKHILL YOUTH CENTRE (temporarily closed) HA9 9DB Barnhill Ward 4 + 1


TOTALS 115

12 x P&P 10 X private use 7 x sports club / community ass.

The breakdown of facility access is set out above and as can be seen, only 12 of 27

facilities (two of the 29 sites are shown as temporarily closed) are considered to be

accessible to the public on a pay and play basis, whilst ten facilities (predominantly

based at school sites) are currently categorised for private use only.

Despite this, many Brent residents do live within a 1.6km catchment of a sports hall

facility accessible on a pay and play basis. The only area in which this does not



appear to be the case is the East central and North areas of the borough – areas in

which facilities exist (particularly at school sites) but are not currently accessible to

residents on a pay and play basis. The limited public access to sports hall provision

does have an impact on levels of unmet demand, as will be discussed within the

findings of the FPM later in this section.

5.3.2 Sports Hall Analysis – Capacity Ratios

The following table (Table 5.2) sets out the current supply of sports hall space across

the borough, firstly inclusive of private facility space, and secondly just those

facilities that are accessible to the public on a pay and play basis or to sports Club

and community associations.

As can be seen, this distinction between accessibility has a significant impact upon

the borough-wide capacity ratio. For all facilities this equates to a current capacity

ratio of 68.3m2 per 1000 population. This is higher than the current London average

of 57.14 and in comparison this equates to a current surplus of provision of

approximately 16.5 badminton courts currently, increasing to a marginal surplus of

3.2 courts by 2016 (it should be noted that the figures do not take into account the

planned changes in facility provision, through the Building Schools for the Future

[BSF] programme for example).

As identified previously, a considerable proportion of the boroughs sports halls are

not accessible to the public and as shown in Table 5.2, isolating those public access

sports halls has a marked impact upon the capacity ratio. Unfortunately, it is not

possible to compare these figures with the London average, as Active Places Power

does not provide a capacity ratio for just public access facilities across the capital.

Table 5.2: LB Brent Sports Hall Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT

PROVISION

CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000

population)

DEFICIENCY / SURPLUS (In comparison with

London average) FACILITY TYPE FACILITIES TOTAL

(m2) 2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

ALL SPORTS HALLS 27 18023 68.39 61.32 59.01 57.14

+16.5 courts

+6.8 courts

+3.2 courts

PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE 19 12466 47.30 42.41 40.81 NA NA NA NA



The calculations therefore suggest that the existing level of sports hall provision

across Brent is marginally in excess of the London average however, whilst capacity

may be high, accessibility may be a major factor in reducing levels of met demand.

This notion will be investigated further within a review of the Facilities Planning

Model in this section.

Alongside this snapshot of borough-wide facility provision, capacity ratio analysis can

be used to determine levels of provision across a more localised area. This

information is valuable in context with provision levels at the existing three centres

and the potential impact of not including the existing facilities in the calculations.

Table 5.3 below sets out those calculations alongside commentary relevant to

potential developments at each of the three sites.

Table 5.3: sports hall capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn and

neighbouring wards

Ward Total Area In m² of All Halls

Total Population (2001)

Capacity Ratio Per 1000

Surplus / deficit to London Average (m2)

Surplus / deficit to London Average (courts)

VALE FARM Northwick Park Ward 1206 12169 99.104 510.66 2.8 Preston Ward 360 12821 28.079 -372.59 -2.1 Sudbury Ward 1199 12314 97.369 495.38 2.8 Wembley Central Ward 1989 11010 180.654 1359.89 7.6 All Facilities 4754 48314 98.40 1993.34 11.1 Public Access 4142 48314 85.73 NA NA Sudbury and surrounding wards will not be a priority area of need for additional investment. Levels of supply, based upon capacity ratio analysis, show that this area of the borough contains a surplus of approximately 11 publicly accessible badminton courts in total. Provision of five courts at Vale Farm is critical to this supply. BRIDGE PARK Stonebridge Ward 600 15941 37.639 -310.87 -1.7 Tokyngton 594 11839 50.173 -82.48 -0.5




Total Population (2001)



Surplus / deficit to London Average (courts)

Ward Alperton Ward 180 12340 14.587 -525.10 -2.9 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -699.97 -3.9 All Facilities 1374 52370 26.24 -1618.42 -9.0 Public access facilities 1194 52370 22.80

NA NA

Based on an evaluation of supply alone, ward level capacity analysis identifies a shortfall of approximately 9 badminton courts (in comparison with the London average) across Stonebridge and the neighbouring wards of Alperton and Harlesden, both of which contain particularly low levels of provision currently adding to the important role of Bridge Park in providing community sports facility provision in this area of the borough. CHARTERIS Kilburn Ward 486 14137 34.378 -321.79 -1.8 Queens Park Ward 1404 12385 113.363 696.32 3.9 Brondesbury Park Ward 861 11664 73.817 194.52 1.1 Mapesbury Ward 0 13263 0 -757.85 -4.2 All facilities 2751 51449 53.47 -188.80 -1.0 Public access 1590 51449 30.90 NA NA At a local level, in Kilburn and surrounding wards, capacity ratios identify an oversupply of facility provision but much of the provision is private (located at school sites) generating high levels of unmet demand. Future developments under consideration include the possible construction of a sports centre as part of the regeneration of the South Kilburn NDC. Timescales and funding for this project are undetermined at this stage.

In summary, in relation to the three centres, capacity ratio analysis identifies a

shortfall of sports hall provision in (or near to) the current location of both Bridge

Park and Charteris. Sudbury and neighbouring wards contain a slight oversupply, but

Vale Farm is highly important to that sports hall stock as publicly accessible pay and

play sports hall space.



5.3.3 Sports Halls Supply vs Demand – Facilities Planning Model Findings

The above capacity ratio analysis provides an important review of current levels of

supply and suggests that a slight over provision exists at borough-wide level but

shortfalls in supply are clearly evident within pockets of the borough.

A more comprehensive assessment of levels of both supply and demand has been

made using Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM). As discussed within the

introduction, this strategic facility planning tool allows an estimation of demand

across a set study area (Brent and neighbouring boroughs) against the current and

future level of provision. Calculating how supply vs demand changes dependant on

key scenarios, notably changes in facility stock and increases in population, allows a

prediction of the future issues in relation to sports hall provision across the area.

5.3.4 Sports Halls Run 1- key findings - current population and provision

The findings of the FPM align with the above capacity ration analysis. Run 1 identifies

that the capacity of Brent’s sports halls is above the London average. In fact, it is the

second highest level of sports hall capacity across the study area (Brent and

surrounding boroughs). However, because of issues of accessibility, demand

outstrips capacity considerably across the study area as a whole.

Currently within Brent, unmet demand stands at 28.6% of the population - this

equates to approximately 18 badminton courts. The South East of the borough

demonstrates the highest shortage at present and 17% of satisfied demand is

imported from Westminster, with 15% of demand imported from Kensington &

Chelsea (both of which are located south of Brent). Some residents living in a Central

East location of the borough fall outside a 1 mile catchment of a sports hall and this

situation is unlikely to change with the facility provision proposed. An opportunity

does however exist to increase access to existing provision located at school sites,

and should be explored in context with improvements in quality and access to sports

facility provision as part of the BSF programme.

Figures 5.3 and 5.4 below provide a visual representation of those facilities included

within the analysis alongside the distribution of unmet demand. It should be noted

that the FPM analysis is only inclusive of publicly accessible sports hall space.



Figure 5.3 Brent FPM – 2007 Operational Sports Halls

Figure 5.4: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 Operational Halls



5.3.5 Sports Halls Run 2 – projected population and provision (2016)

By 2016 an additional four sports hall sites should be accessible across Brent.

Copland School, Wembley Academy and the re-opening of the currently closed sports

halls at Chalk Hill Youth Centre and Moberly Education Centre will provide this sports

hall space.

Assuming the existing facilities remain open, the projected increase in sports hall

capacity by 2016 would be a highly significant 48.2%. Over the same timeframe, the

projected demand increase (caused by population change) is an additional 3.7%. The

location of the proposed facilities and the increase in capacity would eradicate most

but not all unmet demand and on the whole the findings suggest the need for a

marginal 2-3 additional badminton courts borough-wide by 2016.

Figure 5.5 Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 Operational Halls



5.3.6 Sports Halls - FPM Summary and Key Issues

The findings indicate that in comparison with the study area, Brent currently has a

good stock of sports hall provision which will be increased by a sizeable amount

leading up to 2016. Despite this, levels of unmet demand remain significant,

indicating issues of facility access and quality.

Again in context with the three leisure centres under review, the very South East of

the borough (location of Charteris) contains the highest level of unmet demand

(from within and outside Brent). Any changes to sports hall provision (both now and

leading in to 2016), whether through any redevelopment of Charteris or the

development of new facilities in this area (South Kilburn NDC in particular), can help

to alleviate the unmet demand further. Any closure of Charteris without local re-

provision would of course increase the level of unmet demand further. Increasing the

accessibility of school sports hall facilities and improving the quality (particularly

through the BSF programme) may also be considered as a means of increasing

provision. However, this needs to be realistically planned in terms of timing for

schools and management.

Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre appear to play

an important role in satisfying demand now and the future provision of facilities at

Wembley Academy and Copland (which overlap with the catchments of Bridge Park

and Vale Farm to some degree) will help to satisfy additional demand across the

catchments as the population increases.

To the north of the borough, JFS and Kingsbury school sports halls are considered to

be insufficient to meet demand both now and leading into 2016, and the need for

additional facilities (possibly in conjunction with the exploration of an additional

swimming pool site combined with dry provision) should be given further

consideration.

5.3.7 SPORTS HALLS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE CENTRES

Reviewing the findings of the FPM review and the capacity ratio analysis suggests

that Brent has a considerable stock of sports hall provision that is currently not being

used to maximum effect.



In context with the three leisure centres under review, we have seen through

capacity ratio analysis that all three facilities play an important role in both borough-

wide and local provision. Reduction of sports halls through facility closure would have

a significant impact on supply levels.

Access to existing facilities is a major issue for the south east of the borough with

the deficit in sports hall provision considerable once private (non community pay and

play access) facility provision is removed from the calculations. This makes the

current leisure stock even more essential.

Re-provision and replacement, whether through new-build or increased access of

existing school facilities (that are fit for purpose), would be an essential factor if any

closure of one of the three main leisure centres was to be considered by LB Brent as

a priority.

5.4 SWIMMING POOLS

Figure 5.6 below indicates the distribution of swimming pools across the borough. As

before, a 1.6km catchment has been applied; publicly accessible facilities are

denoted with a blue catchment radius, private facilities are denoted with an orange

catchment. Grove Park School – Map-point 4 – is considered as a community

swimming pool by Sport England. Our consultation, however, has established that

community use of the pool is extremely limited. The corresponding table (Table 5.4)

provides further detail of the existing facilities. Please note, the location of all leisure

centres under review has been included.



Figure 5.6: All Brent swimming pools, 1.6km catchments and facility access

identified (location of Bridge Park and Willesden Sports Centre also identified)

Table 5.4: All Brent swimming pools - further detail

Map point Facility Name Postcode Ward Lanes Ownership Access

Facility Age

A VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG

Sudbury Ward 6

Local Authority

Pay and Play 1979

C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX

Willesden Green Ward -

Local Authority

Pay and Play 2006

B

BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE NW10 0RG

Stonebridge Ward

No Pool

D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET

Kilburn Ward

No Pool

1

LIVINGWELL HEALTH CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 8DS

Tokyngton Ward - Commercial

Registered Membership

use 1994

2

CANNONS HEALTH CLUB (BRONDESBURY PARK) NW2 5JY

Brondesbury Park Ward 3 Commercial


use 2002



Map point Facility Name Postcode Ward Lanes Ownership Access

Facility Age

3

MANOR HEALTH & LEISURE CLUB (CRICKLEWOOD) NW2 6PG

Mapesbury Ward - Commercial


use 2001

4 GROVE PARK SCHOOL NW9 0JY

Queensbury Ward 3

Community Special School

Sports Club /

Community Association 1977

On geographical distribution alone, provision for swimming immediately appears to

be insufficient. The majority of Brent’s residents live outside the recommended

catchment of any swimming pool and only a small minority live within a 1.6km

catchment of one of the two pools accessible on a pay and play basis. The central,

north (west) and south central areas of the borough lack provision most at present.

5.4.1 Swimming Pool Analysis – Capacity Ratios

Brent has a significant deficit of water space in comparison with other London

Boroughs and the London average. The current provision of 6 pools across the

borough equates to 1292m2 of water space in total (private and public) generating a

capacity ratio of around 4.8 m2 per 1000 population. To match the London average,

the borough currently requires an additional 3098m2. This could rise to almost

3,606m2 by 2016 if no additional provision is made and population growth occurs as

projected, as detailed in Table 5.16 below. When discounting private water space

from the calculations, the capacity ratio falls to just 3.26m2 per 1000 population.

Table 5.5: LB Brent Swimming Pool Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT

PROVISION

CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population)



(m2) 2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

ALL SWIMMING POOLS 6 1522 5.76 5.57 5.18 16.16 -3002m2 -3524m2 -3721m2 PUBLIC ACCESS

2 860 3.26 2.92 2.81 NA NA NA NA

Narrowing the analysis to a more local level allows an evaluation of facility provision

in context with the three leisure centres under review. In context with Vale Farm,

this analysis provides an indication of the importance of the swimming pool facility at

this location, and for the other two facilities (Bridge Park and Charteris) this analysis



helps to identify whether additional swimming facility provision in these two locations

is also in demand.

Table 5.6: Swimming pool capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn and

neighbouring wards.


Total Population Capacity Ratio Per 1000


Vale Farm Northwick Park Ward 0 12169 0 -196.65 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -207.19 Sudbury Ward 430 12314 34.92 231.01 Wembley Central Ward 0 11010 0 -177.92 All Facilities 430 48314 8.90 -350.75 Public access 430 48314 8.90 NA Local to Vale Farm (Sudbury and neighbouring wards) analysis of capacity ratios shows a shortfall of water space. The implications therefore are that the water space at Vale Farm is insufficient for this area of the borough and clearly critical provision for swimming within Brent overall. The following FPM analysis will identify the demand for swimming pools further. Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 0 15941 0 -257.61 Tokyngton Ward 136 11839 11.487 -55.32 Alperton Ward 0 12340 0 -199.41 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -197.96 Combined 136 52370 2.60 -710.30 Public Access 0 52370 0.00 NA Stonebridge and surrounding wards are also underprovided for. Capacity ratio analysis identifies the need for an additional 710m2 of water space (in excess of 6 lane 25m pool) to bring this region of the borough into line with the London average. Charteris Kilburn Ward 0 14137 0 -228.45 Queens Park Ward 0 12385 0 -200.14 Brondesbury Park Ward 160 11664 13.717 -28.50 Mapesbury Ward 204 13263 15.381 -10.33 Combined 364 51449 7.07 -467.42 Public Access 0 51449 0.00 NA Capacity ratio analysis confirms that provision of water space across this area of the borough is significantly below the London average, equating to a shortfall of some 462m2 per 1000 population. Although not within a neighbouring ward of Kilburn the 430m2 of water space located at the Willesden Sports Centre is within reasonable proximity and demand for swimming is likely to be exported there or across the borough boundary to pools within neighbouring boroughs.



As demonstrated above, the current levels of swimming provision are such that

based on capacity ratio analysis, additional pool space is required at each of the

three locations (and surrounding wards) of the three leisure centres. Again, this

analysis is neither inclusive of facilities planned nor the potential impact of facility

provision across the borough boundary in neighbouring boroughs. For a more

comprehensive analysis of these factors alongside an evaluation of demand as well

as supply we turn to the findings of the FPM.

5.4.2 Swimming pools supply versus demand –Facilities Planning Model

In alignment with the capacity ratio analysis, the findings of the FPM show a major

deficiency swimming pool provision across the borough.

5.4.3 Swimming Pools Run 1 - Current population and provision

The first scenario based upon current population and facility provision showed Brent

to have the lowest number of pool sites and capacity across the entire study area.

Predictably, given the geographical locations, a high percentage (just under 50%) of

the Brent population does not live within a 1.6km catchment of a pool site. A

considerable proportion of Brent’s satisfied demand for swimming is exported to

neighbouring Ealing and Harrow - both of which have higher capacity than

demand. Despite this, and a critical factor in the case for additional pool provision

within Brent, residents across a large area of central and northern Brent are outside

the catchment area of any pool. Figure 5.7 below identifies the current densities of

unmet demand across the borough and surrounding areas. The central, north central

and southern areas of the borough suffer from the highest levels of unmet demand

currently.



Figure 5.7: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2007 Operational Pools

5.4.4 Swimming pools Run 2 – Project population and provision (2016)

The second scenario demonstrates the impact on satisfied demand through an

increase in pool provision by a further 3 pools planned for development across the

study area (all outside the borough). The findings show that the increase in capacity

of visits is greater than the projected increase in demand. However, as the increase

in capacity is to occur outside the borough boundary, unmet demand in Brent

remains high and is predicted to be virtually the same in 2016 as in 2007. As with

run 1, given that there are no confirmed developments for additional water space in

Brent, a massive percentage of the borough’s residents will remain outside the

recommended catchment. The projected population growth will contribute to an

increase in demand (and therefore unmet demand) for swimming. Figure 5.8 below

identifies those key areas of unmet demand as the north central, central and south

central areas of the borough.

Highest area of unmet demand



Figure 5.8: Brent FPM – Unmet Demand 2016 operational pools

5.4.5 Demand for a Third Pool

Whilst the focus of this review is specifically on the development options for three

existing sports centres, comment upon the needs case for additional swimming

provision is necessary given the identified shortfall and the facility analysis

confirming investment into additional water-space to be LB Brent’s number one

priority.

The findings of the FPM demonstrate (figure 5.8 above) clearly that the greatest

areas of unmet demand in Brent, both now and leading in to 2017, can be found

within the central areas of the borough. To satisfy the current and future levels of

demand, further investigations into a suitable site should be made by LB Brent in this

location. Undoubtedly, given the low levels of pool provision currently, additional

facility provision within the north / central area of the borough would prove hugely

beneficial. Further discussion of the implications and the priority of developing a third

Highest area of unmet demand



pool in relation to the options for development at the three centres is considered

within the conclusion of this review.

As well as confirming the need to maintain the Vale Farm pool, it should be noted

that the FPM and capacity ratio analysis does identify the need for additional water

space provision and shows levels of unmet demand apparent in the south east of the

borough. This stems predominantly from the current level of water space in Brent

being so low and further deficiencies outside the borough border which spread into

the South East of Brent. The Consultant Team are of the opinion that the focus must

remain on providing additional water space in the areas of greatest unmet demand

with most impact on Brent residents. Alongside this the Consultant Team would not

advocate any additional swimming provision in the Kilburn area given the proximity

to Willesden Sports Centre.

Furthermore, should the swimming pool at Vale Farm be considered for

redevelopment, this will decrease the level of unmet demand within the central areas

of the borough, adding to the needs case for an additional pool further north.

Throughout the research process, comments about the demand for and suitable

location of a third swimming pool in Brent have been commonplace. Much focus has

been placed upon the need for the development of a facility in the north of the

borough.

5.4.6 SWIMMING POOLS - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE

CENTRES

Brent swimming pool capacity is extremely low but water space within neighbouring

boroughs is significant and much demand is exported out of the borough. Residents

living within the central areas of the borough fall outside a 1.6km catchment of a

swimming pool and mapping shows unmet demand to be high in these areas.

Unmet demand to the west of the borough (location of Vale Farm) is low and set to

decrease with the completion of additional pool provision in neighbouring Ealing. The

increase in water space across the study area, as detailed in the FPM Run 2, will

satisfy some local demand but many residents will remain outside the catchment of a



swimming pool. Therefore, the impact of the new developments outside of Brent

does not have that notable an impact on many Brent residents and on local level

provision.

Overall, the FPM clearly emphasises that the development of pool space in the

central areas of the borough should be a regarded as a priority. The location of

existing facilities determines that residents in the north central areas of the borough

live the furthest from existing water space within Brent, providing evidence

supporting the development of additional pool space in this location first and

foremost. Unmet demand outside the borough to the north is also significant and a

pool developed in this location may attract use from Barnet residents. Any

development of the swimming pool at Vale Farm will decrease the levels of unmet

demand within the south / central areas of the borough adding to the needs case to

an additional pool further north.

5.5 HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITIES

Sport England defines health and fitness suites as those facilities providing fitness

stations for both cardio-vascular and strength training. On this basis, Brent contains

a total of 19 main venues in which health and fitness facilities are accommodated.

Figure 5.9 below demonstrates the geographical distribution of those existing

facilities with 1.6km catchments identified for each facility (blue catchments denote

facilities accessible on a pay and play basis, orange catchments denote private /

registered membership for use facilities).



Figure 5.9: All Brent health & facilities, 1.6km catchments and facility access

identified

Table 5.7: All Brent Health and Fitness Facilities - Further detail

Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Access Year Built


Sudbury Ward 73

Local Authority

Pay and Play 1979

B

BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE

NW10 0RG

Stonebridge Ward 40

Local Authority

Pay and Play -

C WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE

NW10 3QX


Local Authority

Pay and Play 2006

D

CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET Kilburn Ward 40

Local Authority

Pay and Play 1983

1 OAKINGTON MANOR SCHOOL HA9 6NF

Tokyngton Ward 11

Foundation School

Registered Membershi

p use 2004

2 LIVINGWELL HEALTH CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 8DS

Tokyngton Ward 21

Commercial


p use 1994

3 ENERGIE FITNESS CLUB (WEMBLEY) HA9 6DE

Tokyngton Ward 77

Commercial


p use 2004



Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Access Year Built

4

CONVENT OF JESUS AND MARY LANGUAGE COLLEGE NW10 4EP

Kensal Green Ward 6

Voluntary Aided School Private Use 1995

5 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (ALPERTON) HA0 4LW

Alperton Ward 126

Commercial


p use 2000


Voluntary Aided School Private Use 2003

7

CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST


Academies Private Use 2003

8 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (KINGSBURY) NW9 9HN

Queensbury Ward 110

Commercial


p use 1998

9

MANOR HEALTH & LEISURE CLUB (CRICKLEWOOD) NW2 6PG

Mapesbury Ward 270

Commercial


p use 2001

10

CANNONS HEALTH CLUB (BRONDESBURY PARK) NW2 5JY

Brondesbury Park Ward 70

Commercial


p use 2002

11 GENESIS GYM & FITNESS STUDIO HA0 1EF

Alperton Ward 60

Commercial

Pay and Play 1996

12 UNIQ HEALTH & FITNESS HA1 3TZ Northwick Park Ward 50

Commercial

Pay and Play 2006

13

UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP


Higher Education Institutions

Pay and Play 1970

14 FITNESS FIRST HEALTH CLUB (KILBURN) NW6 6RG

Queens Park Ward 126

Commercial


p use 1998

15 MOBERLY SPORTS & EDUCATION CENTRE W10 4AH

Queens Park Ward 32

Local Authority

Pay and Play 1997

1217

8 x P&P 11 x RMU / Private

A total of nineteen venues provide a combined 1217 health and fitness stations

across the borough. Eight venues are accessible on a pay and play basis and the

remaining eleven require registered membership for use and may not be affordable

and therefore accessible to all sectors of the local community. In addition, some

private facilities do not allow public access at all (e.g. those located at school sites).

As demonstrated above, the distribution of publicly accessible facilities is very much

focussed toward the southern periphery of the borough.



5.5.1 Health and Fitness Facility Analysis - Capacity Ratios

A calculation of capacity ratio shows there are 4.82 stations per 1000 population, a

ratio that is below the London average of 6.19. To bring the current level of provision

in health and fitness facilities into line with the London average, Brent would require

an additional 359 stations across the borough now, and by 2016, without further

investment, the shortfall could fall to 618 stations. Table 5.17 below sets out those

calculations alongside the capacity ratio of public access pay and play facilities alone.

Table 5.8: LB Brent Health and Fitness Facilities - Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT PROVISION

CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000

population)


London average) FACILITY TYPE

FACILITIES TOTAL Stations

2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

ALL HEALTH & FITNESS

19 1272 4.82 4.32 4.16 6.19 -359 stations

-547 stations

-618 stations

PUBLIC ACCESS 8 439 1.66 1.49 1.43 NA NA NA NA

Table 5.8 serves to emphasise the shortfall in publicly accessible health and fitness

stations across the borough. It is also important to note that the existing pay and

play facilities accommodate an average of 54 stations per facility, whereas private

sector facilities accommodate in excess of 75 stations per facility. Most modern

facilities would seek to accommodate in excess of 100 stations and increasing

capacity at any redeveloped or new built health and fitness facility in Brent should be

regarded as a priority.

As before, by isolating facility provision at the location and in the surrounding area of

the three leisure centres under review, it is possible to establish the surplus /

shortfall of facility provision in these locations which can be used to help inform the

future demand for facility provision.

Table 5.9: Health and Fitness capacity ratios for Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn

and neighbouring wards.

Ward Total Stations Current population (2001)


Surplus / deficit to London Average (stations)

Vale Farm






Northwick Park Ward 74 12169 6.081 -1 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -79 Sudbury Ward 73 12314 4.304 -3 Wembley Central Ward 0 11010 0 -68 All Facilities 147 48314 3.04 -152 Public access 147 48314 3.04 NA Vale Farm (Sudbury) provides the main bulk of health and fitness provision accessible on a pay & play basis for the west of the borough. Uniq Health to the south is just over 1km away and provides 50 stations, but beyond this pay and play provision within the centre and northern areas of the borough is limited. This is reflected in the capacity ratio analysis (stations per 1000 population) which shows that provision across Sudbury and surrounding wards is well below the London average. The findings suggest the need for an additional 152 stations now to bring levels up to the standard for the requirement of the current population (a need that is set to increase with population growth). Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 40 15941 2.509 -58.68 Tokyngton Ward 109 11839 9.207 35.72 Alperton Ward 186 12340 15.073 109.62 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -75.83 All Facilities 335 52370 6.40 10.83 Public access 100 52370 1.91 NA Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre accommodates vital public access (pay and play) health and fitness stations within the south central area of the borough. Two facilities fall within a 1.6km catchment of the site, Energie Fitness Club - providing approximately 77 stations for registered membership use only and Oakington Manor School which provides 11 stations which are not accessible to the public. Across Stonebridge and surrounding wards, capacity ratio analysis inclusive of all access facility provision suggests a minor surplus of stations (approximately 10 stations). Much of this provision is located at private health and fitness clubs; discounting those private health clubs from the analysis results in an extremely low capacity ratio of 1.91 stations per 1000 population. Charteris Kilburn Ward 40 14137 2.829 -47.51 Queens Park Ward 158 12385 12.757 81.33 Brondesbury Park Ward 70 11664 6.001 -2.20 Mapesbury Ward 270 13263 20.357 187.90 All Facilities 538 51449 10.46 219.53 Public access 72 51449 1.40 NA Across Kilburn and surrounding wards, the vast majority of provision is private sector or private access (e.g. school facilities). Capacity ratio analysis for Kilburn and neighbouring wards shows an over supply of approximately 220 stations but the capacity ratio for pay and play facilities






only falls to 1.4 stations per 1000 population, emphasising the important role Charteris Sports Centre plays in providing an affordable and accessible health and fitness facility.

5.5.2 HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITIES - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE

LEISURE CENTRES

The findings of the above analysis demonstrate there is an under provision of health

and fitness facilities and a clear need to increase the provision of accessible and

affordable health and fitness facilities across the borough.

Local to the three centres, the potential to increase the capacity through re-

development should be fully explored, particularly in the case of Bridge Park and

Charteris where the socio-economic status of local residents dictates a demand for

provision that is not private sector to ensure affordability. Mapping of existing provision

shows clear shortfalls in public access provision in the central, north central and east

areas of the borough and any leisure development proposed within these areas should

seek to accommodate a significant stock of health and fitness stations.

5.6 SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES

5.6.1 Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches - Existing Provision

Although there is no actual minimum size for a synthetic turf pitch (STP,) within

Active Places, a STP is recognised to be a floodlit playing pitch surfaced with

synthetic turf and, for the purposes of the database, with minimum dimensions of 75

x 45m. The following map (Figure 5.10) demonstrates the geographical location of

existing pitch provision with catchments of the facilities identifying their access as

before. The locations of the Bridge Park and Charteris centres have been included on

the map for reference. The corresponding table (Table 5.10) provides further detail

of the facilities.



Figure 5.10: All Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches, 1.6km catchments and facility access

identified (where possible)

TABLE 5.10: All Brent Synthetic Turf Pitches - Further Detail

Map point Site Name Postcode Ward Pitches

Ownership Type

Access Type

Management

Type Year Built


Sudbury Ward 1

Local Authority

Pay and Play

Commercial Manageme

nt 1984

B

BRIDGE PARK COMMUNITY LEISURE CENTRE NW10 0RG

Stonebridge Ward No Pitch

D CHARTERIS SPORTS CENTRE NW6 7ET

Kilburn Ward No Pitch

1 WEMBLEY HIGH SCHOOL HA0 3NT

Sudbury Ward

1 3G (not floodlit) School

2

THE PAVILION AT STONEBRIDGE RECREATION GROUND NW10 8LW

Stonebridge Ward 1 3G Other

Pay and Play Trust 1980

3

CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES NW10 3ST

Willesden Green Ward 1 Academies

Sports Club /

Community Association

School/College/University

(in house) 2003


Voluntary Aided School

Sports Club /

Community Association

School/College/University

(in house) 2003



As presented in Figure 5.19, a considerable number of the borough’s residents live

outside the catchment of an accessible STP. However, the frequency with which this

type of facility appears is much lower than some of the other facility types reviewed

and, as will be shown, regional capacity ratios are much lower. The geographical

distribution of the facilities favours the southern and eastern periphery of the

borough at present and the centre of the borough appears to be a key area of need

(although open space may be at a premium in central areas).

5.6.2 Synthetic Turf Pitches - Capacity Ratio Analysis

Currently across the borough, four facilities meet Sport England’s criteria for STP’s.

Wembley High School is not floodlight and is therefore not excluded from the Active

Places Power database. However, through consultation it was established that

Wembley High School is a key facility in the Sudbury ward (location of Vale Farm)

and it has therefore been factored into the capacity ratio calculations, giving a total

of five facilities in the borough. Brent’s STP capacity ratio stands at 0.019 pitches per

1000 population against the London average of 0.02, which signifies a marginal

deficit in provision at present across the borough (less than one pitch). By 2016,

assuming population growth (and independent of changes in the London average),

the capacity ratio analysis forecasts a deficit of approximately 1.2 pitches in total.

Table 5.11: LB Brent STP’s - Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT PROVISION




(pitches) 2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

STP’s 5 5 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.02

-0.3 pitches

-0.9 pitches

-1.2 pitches

An analysis of provision in proximity to the three leisure centres under review helps

to inform the needs case for the future development of and facility mix under

consideration at these three sites. The findings are set out below within Table 5.12.

Table 5.12: Health and Fitness capacity ratios Sudbury, Stonebridge and Kilburn

and neighbouring wards.



Ward Total Pitches Total Population (2001) Capacity Ratio Per 1000

Surplus / deficit to London Average (pitches)

Vale Farm Northwick Park Ward 0 12169 0 -0.24 Preston Ward 0 12821 0 -0.26 Sudbury Ward 2 12314 0.16 1.72 Wembley Central Ward

0 11010 0 -0.22

All facilities 1 48314 0.02 1.03 Public Access 1 48314 NA NA The position across Sudbury and surrounding wards is a slight oversupply, attributable to pitch provision at Vale Farm and a private pitch at Wembley Technology College (which is without floodlighting). As will be identified in greater detail within the following section, the STP at Vale Farm requires considerable refurbishment and repair of the perimeter fencing. The pitch itself was most recently resurfaced in 2001 and the current condition should be reviewed. If the Wembley Technology pitch remains both private and non-floodlit the perceived needs case for the existing pitch at Vale Farm is considerable. Bridge Park Stonebridge Ward 1 15941 0.063 0.69 Tokyngton Ward 0 11839 0 -0.24 Alperton Ward 0 12340 0 -0.25 Harlesden Ward 0 12250 0 -0.25 Combined 1 52370 0.02 -0.05 Public Access 1 52370 NA NA Provision within Stonebridge and surrounding areas is slightly deficient, suggesting the need for an additional 0.5 pitches to match current levels of provision across the capital. The Pavilion at Stonebridge Rec, under 1km from Bridge Park, boasts a full size floodlit 3G pitch and demand for the inclusion of a similar facility at the Bridge Park site would require further investigation. Charteris Kilburn Ward 0 14137 0 -0.28 Queens Park Ward 0 12385 0 -0.25 Brondesbury Park Ward

0 11664 0 -0.23

Mapesbury Ward 0 13263 0 -0.27 Combined 0 51449 0.00 -1.03 Public Access 0 51449 NA NA Kilburn and surrounding wards are without any STP facilities at present and capacity ratio analysis combined across this area identifies a perceived shortfall of one pitch to bring this into line with the London average. Whilst the Charteris site would not allow the development of a pitch on-site, the development of an STP locally could be a possible avenue for investment into sports facility provision.

5.6.3 SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES - SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE

CENTRES

In comparison with the London average, levels of STP supply across Brent are



slightly deficient and existing pitches should be protected, notably for this review

Vale Farm.

The future development of synthetic turf pitches at school sites and through BSF

(possibly with partnership funding from Football Foundation) should remain a

consideration. As identified within the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008, only

two of Brent’s existing pitches are suitable for hockey and although no hockey teams

exist currently, 12 teams should according to Team Generation Rates. The limitations

of facility provision for hockey may be significant and should be a consideration for

new STP’s developed.

It should be noted that this analysis does not take into account provision in

neighbouring boroughs and the potential export of demand to those facilities should

be considered prior to future investment within Brent. Furthermore, other types of

floodlit pitch provision - MUGA’s, 5-a-side and 7-a-side pitches (for example, the

commercial Goals 5-a-side football centre in Alperton and the Moberly Sports

Centre.) which are not included due to their dimensions within the Active Places

Power database but are still used frequently. Likewise, facilities (full size STP’s and

other) located within neighbouring boroughs but in an acceptable proximity for Brent

residents to use, have also not been included. Such facilities may be serving an

important purpose and the location and impact upon demand of these facilities

should be reviewed in more detail prior to any future investment.

5.7 GRASS PITCHES

The geographical distribution of grass pitches across Brent is demonstrated within

Figure 5.11 below. The current distribution is such that all Brent residents live within

a 1.6km catchment of some type of grass pitch facility. Further detail of the type,

quantity and access to the pitches can be found within Appendix 3



Figure 5.11: All Brent Grass Pitches (Active Places Power database)

5.7.1 Grass Pitches - Capacity Ratio’s

Although audited as part of the Active Places Power database, a calculation of pitches

per 1000 population is currently unavailable. Whilst it is relatively simple to generate

our own calculation of pitches per 1000 population, there is no benchmark on which

to compare it for London as there is with other facilities. Instead, it is useful to

return to the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008 which provides an assessment

of pitch provision against existing and future demand.

5.7.2 Current Pitch Supply

In 2003, 81 pitches were available for community team sports use of which 53 were

council owned. The majority of pitches (57) are football pitches and only 8% of

pitches located on school sites were used for community purposes.

5.7.2.1 Existing and Future Pitch Demand (By sport)

Football – Based on an assumption of a 10% growth in football participation as

forecast between 2003 and 2008, a current oversupply of pitches would reduce to 4

(if un-required senior pitches were converted for junior and mini-soccer purposes).



Cricket - Projections for participation growth and the possibility of existing teams

returning to the borough to play home games would reduce a surplus of pitch

provision to one by 2008.

Hockey – Currently there are no hockey teams in Brent and TGR calculations

suggest 12 should exist. No longer a sport played on grass, the lack of suitable STP

provision is a limiting factor as discussed above.

Rugby - Seven existing teams are based at two clubs. A 10% growth in participation

would require 3 additional pitches leaving a shortfall of one.

Gaelic Football - Five Gaelic football clubs support six active teams across the

borough. Currently, five Gaelic football pitches accommodate the needs of the

existing clubs.

5.7.3 Grass Pitches Summary And Impact On The Leisure Centres

As identified within Section Three, the recommendations of the Playing Pitch Strategy

dictate the need for all pitches borough-wide to be retained, with additional pitches

to be created in the south and east of the borough. Pitch and ancillary improvements

at Vale Farm Sports Ground are regarded as a major priority. The Vale Farm Sports

Ground Review (2006) echoes those sentiments, emphasising the importance of

improvements to existing team changing facilities at the Vale Farm Sports Centre

and advocating the potential development of the site as a Community Football

Centre, in accordance with the development objectives of the FA. Improvements to

the Vale Farm Sports Ground will be referenced in greater detail within the options

for development to be taken forward within Section Ten of this review.

5.8 ATHLETICS TRACKS

Athletics tracks included within the Active Places database are those that are

permanently constructed all weather 400m running tracks with a minimum of four

lanes. On that basis, Brent contains one facility - a 6 lane synthetic track located at

the Willesden Leisure Centre. Figure 5.12 below demonstrates the geographical

location and catchment of the WSC facility but also the catchment of the Vale Farm



facility (a disused cinder track). Understandably athletics tracks do not appear

frequently and whilst the catchment identified provides guidance in relation to

residents living within a 1.6km catchment, it is widely accepted that users are willing

to travel considerably further to use facility provision given the scarcity.

Figure 5.12: Brent Athletics Tracks

Table 5.12: Athletics Tracks - Further Detail

Map point Site Name Postcode Ward

Number of Lanes

Ownership Type

Access Type

Management Type

Year Built

C

WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE NW10 3QX


Local Authority

Pay and Play

Commercial Management 2006

A

VALE FARM SPORTS CENTRE HA0 3HG

Sudbury Ward

Disused cinder track

Willesden Sports Centre provides a modern synthetic 6 lane athletics track with

spectator viewing alongside equipment provision for field events. In addition, the

centre benefits from a 60m indoor sprint track and associated ancillary facilities.

These facilities undoubtedly provide the focal point for athletics development,

training and competition within Brent. Usage, however, is currently very low.



5.8.1 LB Brent Athletics Tracks - Capacity Ratios

Whilst the current provision for athletics revolves around the facilities at Willesden

Sports Centre, there is value in evaluating how this level of provision measures up

against the regional average. The six lane track equates to a capacity ratio of 0.023

lanes per 1000 population, below the London average of 0.04. To match the London

average (and regardless of demand and provision outside the borough), the borough

would require a further 4.5 lanes now and 6.2 lanes by 2016.

Table 5.13: Athletics Tracks - Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT PROVISION




FACILITIES TOTAL (lanes)

2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

ATHLETICS TRACKS 1 6 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.04

-4.5 lanes

-5.8 lanes

-6.2 lanes

5.8.2 ATHLETICS TRACKS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON LEISURE CENTRES

There is no real value in calculating capacity ratios at a more local level. The issue in

relation to the three centres is specific to the Vale Farm site and the existence of a

disused cinder track in this location. Whilst the borough-wide calculations identify the

need for additional provision (approximately 6 lanes by 2016) the demand for the

provision of an additional facility (or the refurbishment of the existing Vale Farm site)

appears to be non-existent currently. Usage at the Willesden Sport Centre remains

low and significant capacity to accommodate additional athletics exists at this site.

Whilst Active Places analysis shows that demand may not be in existence at present,

long term strategic thought should be given to the potential for increased demand in

the future. The Consultant Team note there are other facilities within close proximity

but outside the borough boundary which may be able to cater for additional demand

in Brent. The lower prevalence of this facility type dictates that users are willing to

travel greater distances, including trips outside the borough boundary, reducing the

need for a second athletics track in Brent further still.

5.9 INDOOR TENNIS COURTS

According to Sport England, Indoor Tennis Centres included within the Active Places

database include purpose built stand alone tennis centres as well as indoor courts



connected to other sports facilities, such as sports clubs. At present there are no

facilities of this type within Brent.

5.9.1 LB Brent Indoor Tennis Courts - Capacity Ratios

Based on the current level of population, eight courts would be required to bring

Brent into line with the London average.

Table 5.14: Indoor Tennis courts - Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT PROVISION




FACILITIES TOTAL (courts )

2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

INDOOR TENNIS 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

-7.9 courts

-8.8 courts

-9.2 courts

5.9.2 INDOOR TENNIS COURTS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE

CENTRES

The Lawn Tennis Association strongly advocates the development of indoor tennis

courts. Within ‘ The Need for Covered Courts’ (1998) the LTA emphasises that

opportunity to play tennis all year round and for longer periods every day increases

the quantity and diversity of regular participation within the sport. Of the three

centres under review the Vale Farm Sports Centre site has the most obvious

potential for a development of this type. Site constraints at Charteris certainly and

also probably at Bridge Park would prove prohibitive.

Within the Vale Farm Sports Ground Review (2006) the issue of local user sports

clubs is brought into question, and in context with indoor tennis courts, the Parkside

Tennis Club. The Sports Ground Review confirms that the club play at a recreational

level using existing hard courts, grass courts and a small pavilion situated next to

the Vale Farm Sports Centre. The club’s lease for the existing facilities has now

expired and the future of the club is somewhat uncertain. Whilst demand locally

would be vital to determine the strategic value, viability and development of indoor

tennis courts within Brent, the semblance of an infrastructure for tennis development

that exists in this location may prove a worthwhile starting point for further

investigation.



5.10 INDOOR BOWLS

Facility provision for indoor bowls within Brent consists of a single indoor bowls rink

at the Century Indoor Bowls Club. This facility is located to the north west of the

borough within the Preston ward, as demonstrated in Figure 5.13 below.

Figure 5.13: Brent indoor bowls rinks

Table 5.15: Brent Indoor Bowls Rinks - Further Detail

Map point Site Name Postcode Ward

Number of Rinks Access Type

Year Built Refurbished

1

CENTURY INDOOR BOWLS CLUB HA9 8PY

Preston Ward 6

Sports Club / Community Association 1928 1980

5.10.1 LB Brent Indoor Bowls - Capacity Ratios

Table 5.16 below identifies that the solitary bowls rink contributes to a level of

supply that is marginally above the London average (approximately 0.7 rinks per

1000 population). Based upon this capacity ratio analysis future needs do not appear

to be a priority.



Table 5.16: Indoor Bowls - Capacity Ratios

OVERVIEW

CURRENT PROVISION




FACILITIES TOTAL (rinks )

2001 (263507)

2011 (293900)

2016 (305400)

London average

Current (2001)

Mid (2011)

Future (2016)

INDOOR BOWLS 1 6 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.02

+0.7 rinks

+0.1 rinks

-0.1 rinks

5.10.2 INDOOR BOWLS RINKS – SUMMARY AND IMPACT ON THE LEISURE

CENTRES

The needs case for the development of additional facilities for indoor bowls should be

considered on a case by case basis and in context with an audit of the location,

quality and demand for indoor bowls facilities within neighbouring boroughs and

outdoor provision within Brent.

5.11 THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT - OVERVIEW OF FACILITY PROVISION

This section of the report has highlighted the importance of the main leisure facilities

in providing much needed publicly accessible facilities for sport and leisure activities.

The current undersupply of swimming pools within Brent is a central issue for the

borough, further underlining the importance of Vale Farm (and Willesden Sports

Centre) as the only accessible water space within the borough. The FPM has

determined the central areas of the borough to face the highest levels of unmet

demand at present with residents living within the north centre of the borough

suffering from the furthest travel times to a swimming pool in Brent at present.

Public access to both indoor sports space and health and fitness facilities is also an

issue across the borough, with notable shortfalls again to the central north of the

borough, making this a potential location for the development of any new facilities

inclusive of a swimming pool, sports hall space, health and fitness provision and

possibly outdoor pitch space. Further research into the demand for this type of

facility should consider the potential impact of existing and planned investments into

facility provision across the borough boundary into neighbouring boroughs. This

review does recognise that the impact of swimming pool developments in



neighbouring boroughs is unlikely to have a major impact on the position for Brent

residents living within the central and northern areas of the borough.

In context with the three centres under review and set against the demographic

profile of the borough, this research has identified a specific needs case for

affordable and accessible core facilities at (or near to) the current location of Bridge

Park, Vale Farm and Charteris. Location and facility mix alone is however insufficient

to maintain and increase participation in areas of need and as we have seen within

the demographic profile, satisfaction with sports facility provision remains an issue

for LB Brent. Modern fit for purpose sports facilities have the potential to make a

significant impact, as demonstrated by the high levels of usage at Willesden Sports

Centre following re-opening in 2006. It is in this context that the potential need to

redevelop the three main leisure centres needs further consideration as LB Brent

continue to try to drive up levels of participation.



6. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

6.1 Consultees

In this section the main findings from our interaction with consultees are presented.

Whilst the findings naturally represent the thoughts of the individuals taking part

they do nevertheless help us significantly in building up the picture of current and

future sport and leisure provision in and around the London Borough of Brent.

The consultation exercise featured face to face discussions with leading

representatives from key departments within the Council, together with telephone

interviews with the Chief Leisure Officers (or their nominated representatives) of the

seven local authorities that neighbour Brent. These were as follows:

London Borough of Brent Consultees

Cllr Irwin Van Colle - Lead Member for Environment and Culture

Richard Saunders - Director Environment & Culture

Sue Harper - Assistant Director, Environment & Culture

Gerry Kiefer - Head of Sports Service

Dave Carroll - Head of Planning (Policy & Development)

James Picton - Area Manager, Leisure Connection

Mick McDonnell - Brent PE Advisor

Nitin Parshotam - Head of Asset Management (Children & Families)

Andy Donald - Head of Regeneration

James Young - Property and Asset Management Services

Neighbouring Borough Consultees

Hamish Pringle - Head of Leisure and Arts, Kensington & Chelsea

Steve Powell - Contracts Manager, Barnet

John Norton - Interim Head of Leisure, Camden

Jonathan Kirby - Head of Major Projects, Ealing

Terry See - Head of Sport, Hammersmith & Fulham

Clifton Jackson - Head of Sport, Harrow

Richard Barker - Leisure Services Manager, Westminster



The detailed views of the lead officers from the neighbouring boroughs focused

predominantly on planned facility provision within neighbouring boroughs. This

proved vital context for the development of the FPM Brief. Full details of the facilities

planned for investment can be found within Appendix 4 of this document.

6.2 Key general points made by LB Brent consultees

The following points illustrate the main themes identified during detailed

conversations held with LB Brent consultees:

o The central aim of the council is to make Brent a destination of choice,

moving away from the transient nature of a large percentage of the borough’s

current population; good sport and leisure facilities attract and retain people.

o The priority is the development of a third pool, particularly as swimming is a

popular form of exercise and a curricular requirement. Ideally it should be

located in the north east of the borough – the Row Green Park site would fit

in with regeneration plans for Colindale, but there would be a need to get

Kingsbury School fully on board.

o There is a commonly held view that the three focus centres should be

redeveloped entirely.

o Partnerships are critical - either through education (particularly via Building

Schools for the Future and the ‘unlocking’ of school facilities), health and

housing - in order to realise the best sport and leisure facility offer.

o Funding – there is currently a limited capital budget, though a degree of

political support for additional funding could be secured if the case was made

well. The department is geared up to realise funding initiatives and

opportunities as, when and where they arise.

o Parks in the borough are generally of good quality but sport within them is

not currently a priority; outdoor facilities (e.g. football pitches, Synthetic Turf

Pitches, tennis courts) are generally of poor quality, although a playing pitch

strategy is in place and programmes are beginning to be delivered against it.

o Although there are currently weak club structures and poor school-club links,

informal recreation and physical activity is moving up the agenda.

o Wembley National Stadium: after 5 years of operating 1% of turnover

(c.£750k p/a) will go to charitable causes – Brent intends to lobby that a



significant percentage of any money realised should go towards sport and

leisure provision within the borough.

o Better communication is needed across the authority: community facilities are

built but then often other departments fail to consult on sports usage;

piecemeal development creates problems.

o The Council wants growth in terms of housing and sport/leisure facilities to be

better linked, so the Planning Department is developing a s.106 Standard

Charge, which will secure a standard amount of funding for sport and open

spaces – planned to be introduced from September 2007 onwards (as part of

wider Supplementary Planning Document).

o Various s106 pots exist for sport and leisure development, and there is the

opportunity to combine them into one development as opposed to spreading

them thinly across the borough – a strong strategic case would need to be

made, however.

o Planners expect to realise around £6000 in s106 from the development of

each of the proposed 10,000 new homes but the majority of this would go on

transport infrastructure, schools etc leaving only around £1m to £2m

available for leisure/sport.

o Making leisure facilities more affordable, allowing schools to tap in to facility

‘down time’, better programming – all would help maximise usage, but there

may always be a tension between management contractors making a profit

and wider school usage. Better access to parks and open spaces for schools is

needed; new facilities could help improve the borough’s currently poor club

structure.

o Development of sport and leisure services is integral to the regeneration

agenda, but this has yet to be fully realised at the strategic level – there is

good interaction between sports and regeneration teams at the local level,

however.

o Public sector asset management – there is a need to ensure that public realm

facilities match future growth projections.

6.3 Specific views with regard to the three focus centres

The following comments highlight the majority views of LB Brent consultees with

regard to each of the three focus centres.



6.3.1 Charteris

o Small, wrong scale, not fit for purpose, and on a poorly accessible site

o The south Kilburn area is already well served by Willesden and facilities in

neighbouring boroughs and hard to justify maintaining or renewing provision

o Not well known or used by school groups, and has a limited range of provision

o Currently has problems with cracks to the main hall floor

6.3.2 Vale Farm

o Not fit for purpose, poor layout, in need of repair (as a minimum the facility

needs re-roofing) - demolition and re-build would be the best solution

o The Centre’s location is not ideal but there is scope for rebuilding on a

modified site

o Need to make most of the park as well as the sports centre site (cf Willesden

Centre’s positive interaction with its neighbouring park)

o Redevelopment would need to attract significant funding as ‘enabling’

development (such as new housing) is not possible

o Good schools use currently so would be a key user group

6.3.3 Bridge Park

o Performs a good local function but the building has never been fully fit for

purpose; the scope of its uses should be reduced

o The suggestion is that the adjacent Unisys buildings be demolished and

replaced with a new sports centre, then demolish Bridge Park and redevelop

as housing. However, the site is land banked and the current owners (of the

Unisys site) are waiting for the best possible price before sale is likely

o Potentially a problem with flooding from nearby River Brent (the extent of this

risk is yet to be established)

o The Stonebridge area faces some difficult social and socio-economic issues

and a question mark remains over the potential for a new / re-developed

facility to generate significantly higher usage



6.4 Summary

The consultation process established a clear consensus that all three facilities require

action. The design, layout, condition (and to a lesser degree, location) of all three

centres received regular comment. Throughout the consultation the need to improve

and enhance the existing facility stock has been well emphasised. A number of

complex issues specific to the three sites (Bridge Park in particular) have been raised

which require further consideration. These will be discussed in greater detail within

Section Seven – Planning and the Options appraisal – Section Nine.



7. PLANNING ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS

7.1 Introduction

This section sets out the planning issues and considerations in review of Bridge Park

Community Leisure Centre, Charteris Sports Centre and Vale Farm Sports Centre in

Brent. This section considers views (from Brent officials and plan documents) on any

potential development proposals for provision of sports facilities at the three sites.

Justification for these views and wider planning validation comes from:

• Brent Unitary Development Plan and Local Development Framework Planning

Polices and reasoned justification - relevant to the proposed sites/sports and

recreation provision

• Further consultation with the Brent Planning Department

7.2 Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre - Proposals for Development

As previously established, the centre is now over 20 years old and as a conversion of

a bus centre, was not designed/laid out for the specific function of an indoor sports,

fitness and recreation facility. Significant investment (in excess of £1m million by

end 2008) will have been spent on making the facility fit for purpose.

Initial consultations with LB Brent have identified support for the retention and

further development of an indoor sports and recreation facility on this site. The

type/scale of provision and projected level/type of use to meet defined Borough

sports, health and recreational policy objectives needs to be fully determined.

However, the findings of the facility analysis (Section Five) do emphasise the need

for provision of sports facility of similar mix with a larger health and fitness facility

providing greater capacity.

7.2.1 Project Justification Planning Policy: Unitary Development Plan (2004)

In terms of planning policy the Brent Unitary Development Plan has supportive

polices for the provision of indoor sports hall provision and associated health and

fitness provision at the Bridge Park location.



As we have seen in Section Five, capacity ratio analysis confirms the Stonebridge

ward and neighbouring wards to have a current deficit of sports hall space in part

due to the high population. As the population increases the existing deficit will be

exacerbated. In addition, the percentage of the population in the Stonebridge ward

in the 0 – 19 age group are above the Brent Borough average in each age group.

(Source Brent demographic profile of residents 2001 Census Stonebridge ward).

Arguably these are the most important age groups in terms of providing sporting and

recreational opportunities. Participation levels are typically higher at a younger age

and sport and leisure participation (for all age groups) has the potential to create a

healthy lifestyle, tackle obesity and other health problems and provide sporting

opportunities to promote self confidence and values of sharing and team working.

The combination of an increasing population, high density of young people and

current deficit in sports hall provision reinforces the demand for access to sporting

and recreation opportunities at the Bridge Park Leisure Centre location.

There is a presumption in favour of protection of sports facilities which meet a

defined need and to ensure adequate provision across the borough. As established,

there is an existing deficit in supply of sports hall provision across this area of the

borough. Consequently, the provision of an indoor sports facility at Bridge Park

meets the policy of ensuring there is adequate provision of indoor sports facilities

across the borough.

There is a reversal in the population decline in Brent and a 14% growth in households over the 2001-2016 period from 101,500 households in 2001 to 112,000 in 2016 (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy para 2.4.2 ).

In order to ensure the adequate provision of locally and strategically important sports facilities in North West London, development which leads to a loss of sports facilities will be refused, other than in those exceptional circumstances defined within the UDP (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy chapter STR policy 34 para 2.5.23).



As demonstrated within Section Four (Demographic Profile), the number of

households in Brent who do not have access to a car or van is 36.2% of all

households. However in the Stonebridge Ward it is a very high 47.8% of all

households. (Source Brent demographic profile of residents 2001 Census

Stonebridge ward).

The Bridge Park Leisure centre has good public transport access which is clearly

important given the percentage of local residents dependent on public transport to

access sporting and recreational facilities.

The combination of these findings increases the need to retain the Bridge Park centre

at its present location, or facilities commensurate with the current provision close to

its current location as it complies with the UDP Transport policy.

7.2.2 Project Justification Local Development Framework and Site Specific

Allocations Preferred Options (Former Unisys site)

To reduce the need to travel, especially by private car. To promote social inclusion by planning for houses, jobs and local facilities in close proximity and ensuring access for the whole community to development, whilst minimising severance of communities by traffic; (Source UDP Chapter 6 Transport Policy objectives para 6.4.1.2)

Improvements to the Borough's public open spaces and sports facilities will be promoted, especially in those areas with a deficiency of quality facilities. (Source UDP Part 1 Strategy chapter STR policy 35 para 2.5.23)

It is recognised that opportunities for new community facilities are generally limited, as they cannot compete financially on equal terms with land uses such as commercial, residential or mixed use developments, which attract higher land values. To secure the provision of these key facilities and prevent the loss or re-development to other higher value uses, all existing community facilities will be protected, unless they can be appropriately replaced or provided for elsewhere (Source Brent Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options Ch 10 Enabling Community Facilities para 10.0.3)



This policy recognises the need to protect and retain existing community facility sites

because the opportunity to develop new sites/projects is not as financially attractive

as other land uses. In addition, there is scope to develop some of the existing site for

commercial uses and new housing which will generate land values to support the

development of new sports facilities at the Bridge Park site.

Furthermore, it is noted that the Brent’s Sec. 106 policy for new housing

development is projected to generate around £6,000 per new house, some 11,000

new dwellings up to 2016.

This per house figure is low in relation to Sec 106 sums being generated for new

housing developments elsewhere, for example in Milton Keynes the figure stands at

£17,000 per house and in Newcastle (which includes Pathfinder Housing Renewal

Areas), £10,000 per house.

In both Milton Keynes and Newcastle the sums secured for sports and community

facility provision is around 30 – 40% of the per house sum. The Newcastle approach

is overcoming some of the limitations acknowledged in the Brent policy, namely that

sporting and community facilities cannot generate sufficient land values to provide

new facilities.

If this is the case, then in Newcastle the development of a strong and robust

evidence and needs analysis of sports participation coupled with strong and high

importance attached to this type of provision through community consultation is

“making a successful case with evidence” for a higher allocation of Sec. 106 funding

to sport and recreation. In short, there may be potential to develop the needs and

evidence base which can be applied in planning policy and form the basis of SPD,

Sec. 106 evidence and justification for investment.

7.2.3 Site Specific Issues

Justification within Planning Policy and desire within Brent Council to retain sports

(and some community) facility provision at the Bridge Park site is clearly evident.



There are however a number of complex issues with the Bridge Park and adjacent

Unisys site which any future development options must reflect.

The Unisys site (office blocks) are privately owned and are now in poor condition

having been derelict for some 8 years whilst the current owners hold out for a high

sale value. The identification of the site as an area of flood risk by the Environment

Agency has added a further issue regarding land values. The planning department

recognise the need for change on this site but are at this stage reluctant to progress

a Compulsory Purchase Order given the likelihood of it being contested by Unisys

and the resulting time and financial implications of ongoing legal costs.

The land valuation ranges significantly from £12million (LBBPD recent estimation) to

£24 million (housing developer offer rejected by current site owners in 2004). The

valuation range has predominantly been influenced by the extent and range of

residential development at the site.

The Bridge Park Leisure Centre site itself was previously owned by the Greater

London Council (GLC). The GLC covenants for this building dictate that any change

of use or disposal would require the council to pay back 7/18th of the open market

value which is potentially highly significant.

Initial indications suggest it to be highly unlikely that the GLC administrators would

waiver this fee; however the re-provision of leisure facility provision at the site may

be a feasible means of avoiding this charge. Further clarification of the terms and

conditions of this covenant (the potential to re-provide and the scale of the re-

provision) is a critical next step for the development of this site.

Current site valuations value the Bridge Park land at a range of £12.6 - £17 million

(initial outline LB Brent Planning Department valuations). From a Brent planning

perspective, justification for the closure and re-location of the sports centre would be

acceptable as long as re-provision of the sports and some community facilities were

made, however, a suitable alternative site location may prove difficult to find and the

process would result in additional costs.



The planning department have explored the development of a mixed use residential /

leisure / community complex with current estimations suggesting that the footprint

could accommodate housing equivalent to a land value of £9million, alongside a

sports centre of approx 2000m2. Plans for the inclusion of existing community

facilities would need further context with the issues already detailed.

7.3 Charteris Sports Centre - Proposals for Development

The masterplan for the Kilburn NDC area includes the development / retention of

sport and leisure provision as a priority which has the potential to impact upon the

future of the Charteris Sports Centre.

7.3.1 Site Specific Issues

As established in Section Seven, future development options at the existing site

appear to be limited. The layout is unconventional and the site is totally constrained,

there also appears no real opportunity to acquire land or change the land uses

immediately surrounding the centre.

Within Section Five, the assessment of facility need established an oversupply of

facility provision within Kilburn and surrounding wards but because much of the

provision is private (located at school sites) generating high levels of unmet demand.

Clearly, closure of the Charteris sports centre would increase this deficit in provision

further by three badminton courts. As identified in Section Seven however, the

quality of the existing sports hall is questionable, the ceiling height is restricted by

trusses which prohibit its use for competitive sport raising a considerable question

over the existing facility quality against the potential to obtain the capital receipt for

the site and re-invest in better quality sports facility provision elsewhere. The

existing site is assessed to have a land value of between £500-000 - £900,000

(LBPD estimations 2005) based on the development of fourteen residential units.

The potential for re-investment of this capital receipt will be discussed shortly.

Demand for additional ‘pay and play’ sports hall space in the Kilburn area does exist

and there is a continuing and increasing need to provide a sports hall of around 4

badminton court size to cater for the most popular sports and recreational activity at



The provision of accessible community facilities that meet the needs of present and future generations will be encouraged while maintaining existing amenity, enabling equal opportunities for the visual and performing arts, music and drama, learning, health, social care and general well being. Existing facilities will be protected or appropriately replaced to allow for the future needs of the community. Relevant major and significant applications will be required to make contributions towards, or provision for, new or improved facilities to meet the needs of a growing population. (Source LDF Enabling Community Facilities chapter, para 10.0.2 page 68)

the local neighbourhood level. Future developments under consideration include the

possible construction of a sports centre as part of the regeneration of the South

Kilburn NDC and also through schools involved within the Building Schools for the

Future programme (notably, St Augustine’s). Timescales and funding for either

project is undetermined at this stage.


In terms of planning policy the Brent Unitary Development Plan does have supportive

polices for the provision of indoor sports hall provision and associated health and

fitness provision in the Kilburn Ward.

The specific UDP policies and LDF policy framework which supports the provision of

sports and recreational facilities in the Kilburn ward are as follows:

7.3.3 Project Justification Local Development Framework

Proposals for community facilities serving a neighbourhood or district function should be located in or adjoining a town or local centre. Where there are no suitable sites in these areas, small-scale community facilities should be located on a site with moderate or better public transport accessibility which is easily & safely accessible by cycling and walking. Proposals for community facilities serving local catchments may also be located elsewhere within residential areas outside centres, subject to the protection of neighbourhood amenity. (Source Brent UDP Chapter 11 policy CF 2 para 11.6.2 page 224)

Proposals for small-scale tourist, visitor and ACE uses should be located in or adjoining town or district centres. Where this is not appropriate, small-scale tourist, visitor and ACE uses should be located on sites with moderate or better public transport accessibility and which are easily and safely accessible by cycling and walking. When proposed within residential areas or in mixed- use schemes with residential accommodation, this is subject to the protection of neighbourhood amenity. (Source Brent UDP Chapter 9 policy TE&S 2 para 9.6.4 page 197)



The above two UDP policies and the emerging policy under the Local Development

Framework chapter on enabling local community facilities all illustrate the importance

that sports and recreational facilities are located to maximise opportunities for access

to public transport and in existing centres.

The need to consider and comply with these policies in any development or re-

location of the Charteris sports centre is underlined by car ownership statistics in the

Kilburn ward. In terms of household who do not have access to a car or van some

56.5% household in the Kilburn ward do not have access to a car or van (compared

to a borough average of 36.2%)

In summary and in terms of UDP and LDF Planning polices, both documents protect

current local provision and the justification for the redevelopment of Charteris Sports

Centre must be built on a number of key issues highlighted below.

Planning policy supports the need to retain existing sports and community sports

centres where there is a demonstrated need, either in their existing location or in a

location which maintains local neighbourhood access.

There is a growing population in the Kilburn ward and the Kilburn ward is the ward

with the second highest population in Brent at 14,100 people which will exacerbate

the existing deficit of sport halls provision. Re-provision of sports hall space following

the closure of Charteris will be required unless sufficient increase in sports hall

capacity can be achieved through the development of planned projects locally.

Any sufficient increase in sports hall provision locally through the development of

other projects may provide justification for the investment of any potential capital

receipt from Charteris Sports Centre into a suitable sports development package

deemed appropriate by the planning department in conjunction with the Sport

Services Team in the Environment and Culture Directorate.

7.4 Vale Farm Sports Centre - UDP Proposals

The Vale Farm Sports Centre site is allocated as public open space in the 2004 UDP

and the Brent Local Development Framework site allocations list (project 9 page 71.



2007) has produced an outline site allocation description, options and project

justification for the site. In brief, this outlines a proposal to retain (and possibly re-

develop) the existing sports facilities and reinstate the athletics track. The existing

land classification prohibits enabling development at the site.


Sports Halls and Swimming Pools

The UDP policies provide an unequivocal policy and reasoned justification for

supporting the retention of the Vale Farm indoor sports and recreation centre on the

existing site. In 2003 a sports and leisure development framework for Brent

identified the need for new and enhanced facilities based on residents and users

priorities.

This Strategy examined potential locations for indoor facilities requiring extensive

site areas, and which need to be co-located with outdoor sports facilities (as they

share changing facilities and have indoor and outdoor elements to the same sport),

in accordance with the sequential approach. It should be noted the sequential

approach is where the location of sports and recreation uses should generally accord

with a sequential approach of: first consideration being given to town centres; then

edge of town centres, district centres; and only then out-of-town sites with good

public transport access.

As an outcome of this work it was determined and decided that the Vale Farm site

does pass the sequential test and there is no better location in terms of locating the

sports hall and swimming pool within the sequential test sequence.

This led to the policy in the UDP specifically citing Vale Farm. The policy is set out

below:

The Council has set out site specific proposals for the provision of indoor (with some outdoor) facilities at Vale Farm and Kingsbury. It will also bring forward proposals for the re-provision of Willesden Sports Centre and Athletics Stadium. These proposals require extensive site areas. In each case there are no sequentially preferable locations and the proposals are included in the Plan on that basis. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and Recreation policy OS 20 page 214)



7.4.2 Playing Fields Assessment of Need

The Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008 provides guidance on planning and

providing for playing fields for team sports within Brent up until 2008. Projections

for future demand have been made using sports development targets and a 10%

growth in the current Team Generation Rates.

The current pitch supply audit showed that in 2003, 81 pitches were available for

community team sports use of which 53 were council owned. The majority of pitches

(57) are football pitches and only 8% of pitches located on school sites, were used

for community purposes.

In terms of looking at the existing and future pitch demand at Vale Farm (but only

looking at football because that is the current use of the all weather pitch) and based

on an assumption of a 10% growth in football participation, as forecast between

2003 - 2008, a current oversupply of pitches would reduce to 4 (if un-required senior

pitches were converted for junior and mini-soccer purposes)

In summary, the assessment of need for playing fields in relation to Vale Farm and

the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy identifies:

• A 10% increase in team generation rates

• Additional pitches need to be created in East and South of Brent and schools

need to have access to pitches within walking distance and with affordable

prices

• Brent needs to work with clubs and governing bodies to create more

opportunities for participation

• The existing Council owned pitches and ancillary facilities in most need of

improvements and upgrading in Brent include Vale Farm Sports Ground


Playing Fields

The UDP policies in respect of open space, sport and recreation support the playing

pitch strategy of retaining pitches despite their being a projected surplus of 4 football

pitches by 2008. The UDP goes further in protecting existing playing fields; policies

and justification are as follows:



The justification for this plan policy is significant:

In summary, the UDP plan polices and justification support the retention and

development of the playing fields at Vale Farm for football despite their being a

projected surplus of four football pitches in Brent by 2008 and the current grass

pitch being in disuse.

To summarise the current position in relation to the Vale Farm Sports Centre and

the central planning issues:

• There is a strong needs assessment which supports the retention and

further development of all these individual facility types at (at least) the

present scale of provision for sports halls, water space and outdoor

pitches.

The development of sports grounds (including non pitch based facilities and ancillary facilities) or open space will not be permitted in areas of local public open space deficiency. Elsewhere, the development of sports grounds will only be permitted where the development of a small part (the minimum required) is essential to safeguard or improve the remainder and overall sports provision is not lost (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and Recreation policy OS 8 paras 10.8.1 – 10.8. 6 page 208)

Brent is significantly below the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) standards on pitch provision. The Council’s experience shows that a shortage of hirable quality pitches exists for all sports leading to many of the pitches the Council manages being over-used. The diversity of cultures in the Borough means that an appropriate level of provision for Brent would exceed the Sports Council’s standards. The Council will have regard to these sports pitch requirement figures which it will calculate for the Borough when applications are made concerning the development of sports grounds. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and recreation para 10.8.1 page 208)

PPG3 on Housing supports Brent’s approach. It notes that clear evidence should be provided that adequate local provision of playing fields remains before development of sports grounds should be considered. Given Brent’s current pitch shortages (other than in football) a policy of protecting sports grounds is required. The policy also applies to former sports grounds, or parts of sports grounds, which are currently dis-used or under-used. (Source UDP Chapter 10 Open Space, Sport and recreation para 10.8.3 page 208)



• The UDP polices are unequivocal in saying these facility types should be

protected and not lost to development.

• The UDP polices state that a sequential test has been undertaken and the

Vale Farm site is an acceptable site for retaining a sports facility under the

sequential test. Furthermore the UDP has an actual policy that cites the

Vale Farm site as the location for future development of a sports and

recreation centre.

• Brent has produced a SPD document setting out the status, preferred

option and justification for the future Vale Farm Leisure centre.



8. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW AND FACILITY HEALTH CHECK

8.1 Introduction

This section of the report provides an overview of the current financial position of the

three centres under review, inclusive of an evaluation of recent usage figures and

customer satisfaction.

8.2 Overview of Facility Management

LB Brent operates its leisure stock directly and indirectly via management contracts

for the four leisure centres as follows:

• Bridge Park – a large dry leisure centre converted from a former bus garage

in 1985 and operated in house

• Charteris – a small dry leisure centre built in 1983 and operated in house

• Vale Farm – a wet and dry leisure centre built in 1979 and operated by

Leisure Connection

• Willesden Leisure Centre – a new wet and dry leisure centre which opened in

2006 to replace a pool closed in 2004 and operated by Leisure Connection1

8.3 Usage of the Centres

Overall usage of Brent’s leisure centres has risen by over 400,000 visits per annum

(69%) since the opening of the new centre in Willesden in 2006. The rise in usage,

even taking into account usage of Willesden from people outside of the Borough,

should have a significant impact on the overall sport and active recreation

participation rate for the Borough, which was in the bottom quartile at 18% in the

most recent Active People Survey.

On an equally positive note the opening of Willesden has not had a significantly

detrimental impact on the other leisure centres with overall usage of the other 3

centres falling by just 5,000 (1%) on the previous year. This impact suggests that

there was considerable latent demand for community leisure facilities within Brent. It

is however possible that usage may have arisen as a result of a decrease or transfer

1 The Willesden Leisure Centre is operated under a 25 year PFI Contract which commenced in 2006. It is not part of the financial overview of the review but is considered as part of the overall strategic demand and needs assessment.



of use from private facilities within the borough or facilities outside the borough

boundary.

Figure 8.1: Total Sports Visits

Total Sports Visits

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Charteri

s

Vale Farm

Bridge

Park

Willesd

enTota

l

Visi

ts p

.a.

2004/052005/062006/07

The analysis also confirms that usage patterns are largely based on localised

catchments with most users (circa 75%) coming from within 2 miles of a centre,

although the most recent NBS survey indicates a growth in users travelling further

distances by car to use the Centres.

Usage of the centres by black and ethnic minorities, low income groups and young

people largely reflects the make up of the Borough and the centres score well on

these measures against NBS comparators.

Disabled usage is low across all of the centres and needs to be addressed. As the site

assessments denoted (see Appendix 1), this may be difficult given the physical and

design constraints of some of the buildings.

8.3.1 Bridge Park Usage

Bridge Park usage was lower in 2006/07 though this appears to be due to new

methods for counting users and a fall in usage from non sports activities. Sports

visits however have increased from 72,000 in 2005/06 to 84,000 last year.



8.3.2 Charteris Usage

Charteris only generated 49,000 visits in 2006/07, down from 57,000 the previous

year. This was due to the closure of the centre for refurbishment and improvement

during the year and more accurate usage monitoring. The Centre missed its usage

targets by 20% (12,000 visits).

The management and operations of Charteris were brought back in house in

November 2006. The LB Brent brought the service back in house to help achieve

strategic and corporate objectives, which include maximising the use of all sports

facilities by the diverse population of the borough, whilst offering value for money to

all users.

8.3.3 Vale Farm Usage

Vale Farm shows a small fall in swimming in 2006/07 which could be partly

attributable to swimmers choosing to swim at the new Willesden Leisure Centre. The

distance between the two facilities is however recognised to be significant. On the

dry side, usage has increased as improvements to the programme and bookings

system have been made. Overall usage for 2006/07 is slightly up on 2005/06.

8.4 Financial Performance

The LB Brent supported the 3 leisure centres with a net annual subsidy of

approximately £746k in 2006/072. These figures exclude net non sports income

from the centres which would significantly reduce the overall subsidy. According to

the figures provided by Brent the deficit for 2005/06 was £1.28m. However this

figure includes a significant amount of capital investment by the leisure management

contractor at Vale Farm. The deficit in 2004/05 was £510k, excluding any

accounting and debt charges. There are also significant costs associated with a

depreciation and renewals fund which can skew operating costs from one period to

the next.

2 These figures exclude an additional £200k per annum held by the client for repairs, maintenance and improvements at Vale Farm and Charteris.



Net Costs

200,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

Charteris Vale Farm Bridge Park Total

2004/052005/062006/07

Non discounted user charges are quite high across the centres, in relation to the

quality of the buildings. However more users are taking up the Council’s leisure card

‘BActive’ which provides for generous discounts and concessions to both residents

and non-residents.

Further analysis of the income projections would be required to determine

performance across activities and areas, such as health and fitness and swimming, to

identify areas for improvement as part of any more detailed feasibility study of Vale

Farm. For instance, there are only 153 fitness stations across the 3 centres and as

the main income generators there may be more scope to increase usage and income

in these areas. The introduction of 120 fitness stations at Willesden will have

catered for a sizeable proportion of latent demand but as recognised within the

facility analysis, there remains scope to increase provision in those centres outside

the Willesden catchment.

8.4.1 Bridge Park Figures

The latest NBS figures for Bridge Park in 2006/07 show a subsidy of £388k on a

turnover of £550k with costs of £938k. These figures are consistent with the

previous year (2005/06) showing a subsidy of £383k on a turnover of £534k with

costs of £921k. In 2004/05 the subsidy was £413k on similar costs and income

which indicates a consistent level of financial performance.



These costs do not include the net income position arising from non sports activities

at the centre such as community events. These suggest that that non sports usage

and income is falling whilst income from sports activities is rising. The Sport England

NBS comparisons indicate that due to the size of the facility and the relatively low

number of users the facility is not very efficient in recovering its costs. The centre’s

performance is measured against similar in house managed facilities which

themselves tend to be less efficient at recovering costs than those managed by the

private sector or by not for profit organisations.

The different operating cost items for the Centre as a percentage of turnover are

high for a dry facility compared with typical ratios for local authority facilities. Usage

and income generation ratios are also poor which means the deficit for what is

essentially a dry side sports facility is considered to be relatively high.

8.4.2 Charteris Figures

The latest figures for the Charteris centre show a small net subsidy requirement of

just £3.5k. The performance is a significant improvement on the previous year’s

subsidy of £56k and is in part attributable to a period of closure for repairs and

improvements. The Centre is close to returning to the net surplus position it enjoyed

in 2004/05. However projections for the current year show a significant increase in

staff costs as staff are brought onto LB Brent terms and conditions with the move

back to in house management.

As the centre is quite small it scores quite well on the NBS for income generation per

square metre and cost recovery measures. However overall income and usage is

quite low and staff costs as a percentage of overall costs are quite high for a dry side

facility.

8.4.3 Vale Farm Figures

Vale Farm is managed by Leisure Connection under a new long term contract. The

management fee is fixed at £355k per annum which compares well with the figures

for previous years of an estimated deficit of £837k based on a projected turnover of

£838k and costs of £1.68m. However these costs included a proportion of one off

capital improvements implemented at the end of the previous leisure management



contract. The year before (2004/05) showed a deficit of just £145k on turnover of

£956k and costs of £1,101k.

The Centre does not perform badly against its NBS comparators and its pricing

structure allows it to offset lower performance on some of the efficiency measures.

However measured against newer types of facility is does not perform very well, with

low usage levels and hence income generation.

8.5 User Satisfaction

Overall user satisfaction with the 3 Brent Leisure Centres is relatively high at 83%,

although there are the usual problems found across the country with the cleanliness

of changing facilities and, according to a more recent on line survey, children’s

facilities.

All three centres witnessed a slight drop in user satisfaction last year, largely related

to dissatisfaction with cleanliness, particularly in the changing facilities which is a

common problem in the leisure industry.

Users seem to be pleased with the staff and the facilities, the opening hours and feel

they are getting value for money, though users feel costs are high at Vale Farm.

8.5.1 Charteris User Satisfaction

Charteris enjoys high levels of user satisfaction although there was a slight drop in

satisfaction last year, again relating to cleanliness.



Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Charteris Sports Centre

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

2003 2004 2006 Charteris

Survey yearsSatisfied

8.5.2 Bridge Park User Satisfaction

Bridge Park enjoys relatively high levels of user satisfaction and although they

dropped slightly last year they are still at 89%. From the most recent NBS survey

cleanliness appeared to be the main contributory factor to the fall in satisfaction

levels.

Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Bridge Park Community

Leisure Centre

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

2003 2004 2006 2007


8.5.3 Vale Farm User Satisfaction

After increasing levels of user satisfaction in previous years, Vale Farm dropped back

significantly in 2007 with a significant fall in satisfaction levels from 93% to 74%.



Satisfaction fell in most areas but overall cleanliness and pool water quality were key

areas of user dissatisfaction.

Graph to show percentage of survey respondents that were overall satisfied with their visit to Vale Farm Sports Centre

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2003 2004 2006 2007


8.6 Summary of Financial Position

From our analysis of the most recent Sport England National Benchmark surveys and

other data provided by LB Brent the 3 leisure centres do not appear to operate cost

effectively. Whilst the NBS data suggests the Centres are relatively cost effective

this is more a result of high levels of income generation from user charges as

opposed to operational efficiency efficiencies. Indeed some of the cost measures are

poor, such as high repair and maintenance costs.

Also the non standard nature of two of the centres (Bridge Park and Charteris)

makes direct comparison with other centres difficult3. Once the income and costs

relating to community and other non sports activities are factored in the performance

of these centres is much improved with Bridge Park moving towards a ‘no net cost’

position to the Council.

The centres enjoy reasonable standards of user satisfaction and the usage profile

largely reflects the ethnic and social mix within the Borough, with most users coming

from within a 2 mile radius. The centres are also well used by young people.

3 The data analysis has wherever possible extracted non sports related income and costs.



There appears however to be room for significant improvement in terms of

increasing the overall usage of the facilities, particularly from under represented

groups, particularly disabled users. The success of the new Willesden Centre, which

has increased overall usage of the Borough’s leisure centres by 69% in its first year

of operations and has far exceeded all expectations, indicates that there is significant

unmet demand for high quality community leisure facilities and services within Brent.

The previous year showed a more modest yet significant increase in visits of 55,000

(10%) over the previous year.

The physical state of the facilities is likely to be a limiting factor in enabling the

Council to significantly increase participation and generate any meaningful efficiency

savings. Despite some refurbishment and investment in recent years the 3 centres,

which are some 22-28 years old, are likely to become more expensive to operate and

maintain as they reach the end of their useful economic life. With no provision for

lifecycle investment apparent in the figures provided, the true long term operating

costs of the centres will be higher than those currently shown. As a result the cost

effectiveness of the centres will worsen in the near future and with limited ability to

increase prices for an inferior product, usage and customer satisfaction is likely to

fall.

A better value for money solution in the long term could be, subject to the

availability of alternative sites and the ability to realise a capital receipt from the sale

of surplus sites, to replace the centres with new efficient and flexible facilities

capable of catering for a wider range of users and generating more income. This is

discussed in more detail in Sections 10 and 11 of this report.



9. SITE SPECIFIC OPTIONS AND OUTLINE COST APPRAISALS

9.1 Introduction

This section of the Review details the outline options for each of the three study

sites. This section also presents a financial options appraisal which evaluates the

financial implications of each of the options presented in relation to the key issues of

borough-wide and local needs, value for money and long-term planning. The

process is designed to assist Brent Council in selecting a best fit solution for each of

the three centres. The completion of the research detailed to date and set out within

this Review ensures that the following options for consideration are built upon a solid

evidence base.

9.2 Options Appraisal Best Practise

Following accepted best practice in options appraisals a ‘Do Minimum’ option has

been considered to test whether any significant change and investment is worthwhile

in the long term. A range of further options involving varying levels of investment

have also been considered specific to each centre with financial appraisal where

possible.

Each option has been modelled on a 25 year whole life cost basis to allow for a truer

comparison of the costs of each option over the expected life of a leisure building.

Each option has been discounted back to the Net Present Value, again as per HM

Treasury best practice for investment options appraisals. Key assumptions made in

the options appraisal process are detailed within Appendix 5 of this report.

9.2.1 Capital Costs

Quantity Surveyors Davis Langdon have compiled outline estimates associated with

the new build options based upon an average cost per m2 calculated across a

number of recent leisure centre developments across London.

Mid to upper range new build costs have been used within the options appraisal

process to ensure conservative estimates. The benchmarking process used to inform

the capital costs for the new build options that will be identified shortly and all



associated exclusions and assumptions are detailed within Appendix 5 of this

report.

9.3 Definitions

Each option presents a breakdown of costs as set out within Table 9.1. To ensure

clarity, a definition of each element is provided below. Income and expenditure

figures are based upon 25 year lifecycles. Figures provided by LB Brent form the

income and expenditure figures presented within the options for each of the centres.

Table 9.1: Cost Breakdown and Definitions

Terms Definitions Capital Capital cost associated with undertaking the option

Enabling Development

Potential to develop the site for residential, commercial or other purposes which could result in capital gains for the council that could be invested into the project.

Council Contribution

Investment required from the council to cover the capital costs associated with the option

Income Projected income over 25 years Expenditure Projected expenditure over 25 years

Lifecycle

Total cost of ownership inclusive of utility, operations, maintenance, periodic and other costs across the lifespan of the project (based upon 1.25% - 2% of initial construction costs per annum)

Finance Costs The costs associated with any Council contributions financed through prudential borrowing (at 4.82% over 25 years)

Total Costs/Surplus Total cost position after 25 years

NPV Net Present Value (present values of the annual cash flows minus the initial investment)

Projected Current Spend

Current spend on the three centres revenue inflated by RPI over 25 years, providing a sensible baseline of costs.

9.4 Bridge Park Community Sports Centre

The Bridge Park site faces many complex issues but, out of the three study sites, has

potential for enabling development that could help raise significant capital to fund

any future proposals at the site. As identified within Sections 4 and 5, a publicly

accessible facility in Stonebridge is highly important. The area faces considerable

social issues, crime, unemployment and poor health and there is an identified

shortfall of sports facility provision in this part of Brent.



Participation in this area of the borough is low, and clearly, despite recent

investments into the Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre itself, the design and

layout of the sports facilities are not conducive to generating and increasing

participation in area of identified need in order to reflect and combat broad-ranging

socio-economic issues.

The options proposed identify the financial implications of re-providing a fit for

purpose leisure centre as part of the redevelopment of a mixed use site. This review

has focused upon the demand and options for the sports facility element alone with

some potential re-provision of limited community facilities The future of the larger

community facilities and business units would require further investigation (in

conjunction with discussions with the GLC to confirm the details of the covenants as

discussed within Section Eight).

Inclusion of the adjacent Unisys site within any project taken forward would seem

the most attractive outcome in terms of regeneration within Brent, however, the

undetermined variables (purchase of the land, the flood risk in particular), and our

consultation with Brent Planning Department, have prevented a full financial

appraisal of this option. The options for Bridge Park are discussed below.

9.4.1 Option 1: Do Minimum

This option involves undertaking the minimum amount of works to meet current

health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and also deal with any

immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues which have been identified. This

option does not involve any significant improvements in the layout or functionality of

the facilities and therefore does not represent an opportunity to increase

participation and tackle local social issues.

The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are approximately

£1.68m. A full condition survey will need to be carried out, to confirm any further

DDA works, health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This

option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.



Table 9.2 Bridge Park Option 1 - Outline Costs

Bridge Park Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 1,680,000 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 1,680,000 Income 19,703,399 Expenditure 33,436,444 Lifecycle 6,931,804 Finance Costs 2,920,550 Total Costs/Surplus 23,585,399 NPV 15,250,827

This option results in total costs of £23.5 million over 25 years. Whilst the facility is

undoubtedly popular with the local community, this option makes no impact on the

quality of facility provision or layout and although sports visits have increased

recently, the Project Team is of the view that the generation of additional usage and

income over the long term is unlikely.

Bridge Park Option 1 For Against + minimal disruption to existing operation

and no impact on community facility mix

+ facility well liked locally + current level of subsidy consistent

- income generation poor for a dry-side centre

- no impact on issues with facility design and layout and limited opportunity to increase participation in an area of need

- doesn’t represent value for money in the long term

- maintenance costs likely to increase as facility ages

- doesn’t address Unisys site issue

9.4.2 Option 2: Refurbish Existing Facility Mix

This option involves undertaking the necessary amount of works to meet current

health and safety and DDA requirements where necessary and deal with the most

significant immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues, and is inclusive of

improvements in the layout and functionality of the facilities to improve the income

generation potential. The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices are

approximately £3.8m. A full conditions survey would need to be carried out and a

detailed design brief and refurbishment schedule would need to be drawn up to

confirm any further DDA works, health and safety and remedial works that need to



be undertaken and to gain a much greater degree of certainty regarding

refurbishment costs. This option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12

months.

Table 9.3: Bridge Park Option 2 - Outline Costs

Bridge Park Option 2 Refurbishment Capital 3,849,750 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 3,849,750 Income 24,260,519 Expenditure 33,747,503 Lifecycle 5,545,443 Finance Costs 6,692,492 Total Costs/Surplus 21,724,919 NPV 14,212,603

The total costs over 25 years are estimated at £21.7 million; however the scale of

refurbishment has the potential to impact significantly on both the capital costs and

the income generated through improvements. As stated, further investigative works

are required.

Bridge Park Option 2 For Against + potential for some improvements to

the centre design and function (which may increase usage)

+ facility well liked locally + current level of subsidy consistent + no (or minimal) impact on existing

community facility mix

- income generation poor for a dry-side centre

- impact on facility design and layout through refurbishment may not be sufficient increase participation (and income generation)

- doesn’t represent value for money in the long term

- maintenance costs likely to increase as facility ages

- doesn’t address Unisys site issue - requires facility closure

9.4.3 Option 3: New build – Bridge Park site

This option involves the provision of a new 3,000sqm dry leisure centre elsewhere

within the overall Bridge Park site. This would allow the existing centre to be retained

and then demolished once the new centre becomes operational. This will allow

continuity of provision and minimise inconvenience to users.



The centre will consist of sports hall, large gym, aerobics studios, community café,

changing and meeting rooms/flexible spaces for community use. It is not proposed

that the new build re-provides any of the business enterprise spaces or the larger

events and functions facilities. It also assumes that the terms and conditions of the

GLC covenant would be overcome through the provision of leisure (but not the

community facilities which would require further clarification as to whether this

meets the covenant fully).

The estimated costs of this option are £7.6 million. The reduction in the footprint of

the Bridge Park Leisure Centre (reducing down to leisure provision alone) would free

up a portion of the site for enabling development as discussed with Brent Planning

Department. The estimated valuation for this is £9,900,000 assuming 1 hectare of

the existing site was made available for development (mid range of LB Brent

Planning Department recent outline estimations) and constitutes the funding source

for the new build centre. However part of the development of residential units on

the site would require the re-location of the Breakers Yard currently adjacent to the

Bridge Park site. Brent Planning Department estimate that this would result in a cost

of £2million.

Table 9.4 Bridge Park Option 3 - Outline Costs

Bridge Park Option 3 New Build Capital 7,699,500 Enabling Development 9,900,000 Council Contribution 2,200,500 Income 28,716,842 Expenditure 29,543,745 Lifecycle 4,159,082 Finance Costs 3,777,291 Total Costs/Surplus 1,208,694 NPV 1,370,511

Option 3 represents a deficit of £1.2 million over 25 years, taking into account

lifecycle costs over the same period. The capital costs are inclusive of the costs

associated with relocation of the breakers yard.

Bridge Park Option 3



Bridge Park Option 3 For Against + potential to develop modern centre

with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage and participation (and income) in an area of need

+ project could be funded in part or all through enabling development

+ construction of new facility whilst existing centre in operation would reduce disruption

+ greater potential to meet the terms and conditions of the GLC covenants

+ represents better value for money

- doesn’t address Unisys site issue - impact and future of community

facilities requires determining ( and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)

- size of the sports centre may be restricted by they scale of the residential development

9.4.4 Option 4: Re- development of total site (including Unisys site)

including new build leisure centre

This option would see the acquisition of the neighbouring Unisys site and the total

area developed as a mixed use including a substantial number of residential units.

The proposals would include the re-provision of a dry side leisure centre as identified

within Option 3. However a financial appraisal is not possible given the variables

identified at the outset of the Bridge Park options.

Incorporating the Unisys site into the development would be considered a major

positive of this option alongside the positive outcomes associated with the

development of a purpose built leisure centre established within Option 3 above. LB

Brent has established that the Unisys building remains a negative image for the

borough and a solution whereby the site is redeveloped would be of great benefit.

However, as noted already, the complexity of the site issues and the future of the

Unisys building would result in potentially lengthy timescales and considerable

additional costs (site acquisition, legal costs) for the completion of this option.

Bridge Park Option 4 For Against + incorporates Unisys site into the

scheme + potential to develop modern centre

with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage

- impact and future of community facilities requires determining (and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)

- complex and difficult issue of future of



Bridge Park Option 4 and participation (and income) in an area of need

+ larger site footprint may be available for sports centre

+ project could be funded in part or all through enabling development

+ construction of new facility whilst existing centre still in operation would reduce disruption

+ greater potential to meet the terms and conditions of the GLC covenants

Unisys site - costs and timescales associates with

CPO (if required) - impact an identified flood risk may

cause further difficulties

9.4.5 Option 5: Facility closure and sale of all or part of the total site for

capital receipt

A final option is the closure of the Bridge Park cite and the sale of the land for

redevelopment. Due to the identified need for sports facility provision in this area,

the closure of Bridge Park would demand re-provision which would require the

identification of a suitable site as well as funding for the development. There is also

the possibility that this option would require payment to the GLC if the terms of the

covenant do not accept re-provision of site. Combined, these factors would make

the financial viability of the option highly questionable. The inclusion of the Unisys

site within this option would be subject to the key issues identified within Option 4.

Bridge Park Option 5 For Against + non- traditional leisure centre with

facility provision inhibited by current design and layout

- financial implications and difficulties associated with re-provision of leisure centre locally

- impact and future of community facilities requires determining (and re-provision may be a requirement of GLC covenant)

- no leisure / community provision on-site would be an unpopular decision publicly

- complex and difficult issue of future of Unisys site

- costs and timescales associates with CPO (if required)

- impact an identified flood risk may cause further difficulties



9.4.6 Bridge Park Summary of Options

Table 9.5 sets out the outline costs for the options presented. The figures indicate

that the do minimum and refurbishment options for Bridge Park do not represent

value for money compared against the new build options.

This is primarily because the new build would greatly increase the levels of income

generation through the provision of more attractive and more efficient facilities.

Coupled with some enabling development this allows revenue savings to be recycled

into supporting the costs of investment.

As confirmed by the pros and cons of each option, Option 3 is the leading option. It

represents the greatest opportunity to redevelop in demand leisure facilities to meet

the needs of the local demographic. Option 3 does not however, provide a solution

for the Unisys site, which, as detailed in Option 4 brings with it significant potential

costs.

Table 9.5 Bridge Park Options 1 to 5 - Outline Costs

Option 1 Do Minimum

Option 2 Refurbishment

Option 3 New Build

Option 4 Re-development of total site

Option 5 Facility Closure and sale of site

Capital 1,680,000 3,849,750 7,699,500 Enabling Development 0 0 9,900,000 Council Contribution 1,680,000 3,849,750 2,200,500 Income 19,703,399 24,260,519 28,716,842 Expenditure 33,436,444 33,747,503 29,543,745 Lifecycle 6,931,804 5,545,443 4,159,082 Finance Costs 2,920,550 6,692,492 3,777,291 Total Costs/Surplus 23,585,399 21,724,919 1,208,694 NPV 15,250,827 14,212,603 1,370,511

Costs undeterminable

at this stage

Costs undeterminable

at this stage

9.5 Charteris Sports Centre

Demand for public access sports hall and pay and play access health and fitness

provision in the Kilburn ward is significant as identified within Section Five of this

Review. The health and fitness facility at Willesden Sports Centre (just over 1 mile



from the Charteris site) is operating at maximum capacity (notably for health and

fitness), providing further evidence of the demand for publicly accessible facility

provision of this type in the South East of the borough. The current design of

Charteris Sports Centre is (by modern standards) not conducive to high usage,

income generation or cost efficiencies. The sports hall in particular is limited in the

activities that it can accommodate. The residential location does however generate

popularity with local Brent residents and the health and fitness facility is well used

and serves an important purpose as an affordable local facility.

As identified within Section 4, the south of Kilburn in particular faces high levels

crime and unemployment and participation opportunities represent an important

means of improving the local area. This recognised need for improved quality and

continued provision of sports facilities is recognised within the South Kilburn NDC

Masterplan and the potential development of this (or other local developments such

as community sports facilities in conjunction with the re-developed St Augustine

school) facility may impact significantly on the most preferable option for

development at the Charteris site.

9.5.1 Option 1: Do minimum


health and safety and any outstanding DDA requirements and also deal with any

immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option does not involve any

significant improvements in the layout or functionality of the facilities. Without

improvements to the quality and capacity of the centre, increased usage seems

unlikely.

The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are £0.33m. A full

conditions survey would need to be carried out, to confirm the need for further DDA,

health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This option

assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.

Table 9.6 Charteris Option 1 - Outline Costs

Charteris Option 1 Do Minimum



Charteris Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 335,760 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 335,760 Income 3,976,560 Expenditure 4,141,331 Lifecycle 1,209,129 Finance Costs 560,345 Total Costs/surplus 1,934,245 NPV 1,270,765

Estimated total costs of £1.9 million over 25 years are considerably higher than

redevelopment and new build costs, as will be demonstrated shortly. Pros and cons

of this option follow.

Charteris Option 1 For Against + facility analysis identifies demand for

existing facility mix (and shortfalls of publicly accessible provision for these facility types)

+ minimal disruption to existing service + high levels of user satisfaction with

existing provision + current running costs low (but likely to

increase as facility ages)

- ancillary facilities not fit for purpose and design and layout poor

- sports hall design issues inhibit use and lack of dance studio space causes conflicts of interest across user groups

- does not represent long term value for money

- facility aging and concerns raised over structural condition

9.5.2 Option 2: Facility Refurbishment



immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option also involves some

improvements in the layout and functionality of the facilities and the conversion of

the sports hall to health and fitness to allow for a larger gym capacity alongside

dedicated aerobics and dance studio space. The estimated capital costs at current

2007 prices of this option are £0.67m. A full conditions survey would need to be

carried out, to confirm the minimum amount of DDA, health and safety and remedial

works that need to be undertaken. This option assumes at least part closure of the

centre for 12 months.



Table 9.7: Charteris Option 2 - Outline Costs

Charteris Option 2 Re-development

Capital 671,520 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 671,520 Income 8,852,231 Expenditure 6,752,494 Lifecycle 967,303 Finance Costs 1,120,690 Total Costs/surplus 11,744 NPV 109,657

This option generates a small surplus of £11.7k over 25 years predominantly through

the potential to generate increased income through higher quality facilities and a

larger capacity health and fitness studio.

This option assumes that the sports hall will be re-provided in a nearby school (initial

discussions had been held with St Augustine) and opened up to the community

outside of school hours at no costs to the Council, or as part of the planned South

Kilburn NDC leisure centre.

Charteris Option 2 For Against + potential to increase health and

fitness capacity, usage and income generation whilst combating local shortfall of pay and play access facilities

+ anecdotal evidence suggests some users prefer the smaller / local feel of the facility in contrast to a large purpose built leisure centre (e.g. WSC)

+ current design of sports hall limits usage + represents better value for money long

term than ‘do minimum’

- re-development of sports hall dependant on planned developments locally

- capital investment required - scope for refurbishment may be

constrained by existing building - disruption to operation during

refurbishment - site access and lack of car parking

9.5.3 Option 3: New build

This option involves the provision of a new slightly larger 880sqm (assuming some

potential to build upwards) dry leisure centre on the site of the current facility. This

option assumes closure and demolition of the existing centre and a loss of provision

for 18 months. The new centre will consist of a large gym, dance / aerobics studios,



health facilities, changing and a small flexible space for community use. The

estimated costs of this option at current prices are £1.34m.

Table 9.8: Charteris Option 3 - Outline Costs

Charteris Option 3 New Build Capital 1,343,040 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 1,343,040 Income 14,007,181 Expenditure 10,254,084 Lifecycle 725,477 Finance Costs 2,296,835 Total costs/surplus 730,784 NPV 275,632

This option projects a notably higher surplus of £730k over 25 years. As with Option

2, this option does not re-provide the sports hall and assumes re-provision would

take place through alternative projects (possibly St Augustine’s / South Kilburn NDC)

and at no cost expense to the Council. A variation on this option would be a new

build inclusive of sports hall space, however, the site constraints and the need to

increase the dimensions of the ancillary facilities and circulation may limit the

dimensions of the hall to 2 badminton courts. This would have a minor impact on the

income generation and capital costs.

Charteris Option 3 For Against + potential to increase health and

fitness capacity, usage and income generation whilst combating local shortfall of pay and play access facilities

+ ensures improvements to design, layout, functionality and operational efficiency of the centre

+ anecdotal evidence suggests some users prefer the smaller / local feel of the facility in contrast to a large purpose built leisure centre

+ current design of sports hall limits usage + represents best value for money long

term

- re-development of sports hall dependant on planned developments locally

- capital investment required - proximity of local residential and

limitations of site may prohibit developments

- site access and lack of car parking - facility closure during construction

9.5.4 Option 4: Facility Closure and Sale of Site for Residential Development



The most recent estimations (2005) for the capital receipt for the site stands at

£900k based on the potential to construct 14 residential units (LB Brent Planning

Department estimations).

Both of the previous options, which remove any dedicated sports hall space, are

dependent upon re-provision within the local area. This is either through the school

provision highlighted (which requires further investigation by Brent) or indeed the

South Kilburn NDC project, which requires clarification over the timescales and final

project mix.

Charteris Option 4 For Against + existing facility mix, design and layout

limits function usage and income generation

+ potential to realise capital receipt for investment into better quality, fit for purpose leisure facility provision

+ concerns over structural condition of the facility and economic life

- facilities whilst not fit for purpose, do serve a purpose and user satisfaction is high

- facility closure and re-investment into another project (e.g. local school) may not be perceived well publicly

9.5.5 Charteris Summary of Options

As with Bridge Park, the figures demonstrate that new build and redevelopment

represents considerably greater value for money than maintaining the facility in its

current condition. Specifically for Charteris the new build cost also provides a better

option for long term financial viability.

Table 9.9 Charteris Options 1 to 4 - Outline Costs

Option 1 Do Minimum

Option 2 Re-development

Option 3 New Build


Capital 335,760 671,520 1,343,040 Enabling Development 0 0 0 Council Contribution 335,760 671,520 1,343,040 Income 3,976,560 8,852,231 14,007,181 Expenditure 4,141,331 6,752,494 10,254,084 Lifecycle 1,209,129 967,303 725,477 Finance Costs 560,345 1,120,690 2,296,835 Total Costs/Surplus 1,934,245 11,744 730,784

Potential capital receipt

of £900k combined with lifecycle costs

saving



Option 1 Do Minimum


Option 3 New Build


NPV 1,270,765 109,657 275,632

Charteris Sports Centre is well liked by its current users due to its residential location

and community feel. Improvements to the centre through new build or

redevelopment can enhance efficiency, increase value and local participation further.

Equally though, the reinvestment of the capital receipt from the Charteris site into

sports facility provision in other parts of the borough would be beneficial. However,

as identified within Sections Five (facility overview) and Seven (planning), the

development of other planned projects in this locality (notably the South Kilburn

NDC) would influence how any receipt could be reinvested. If the school site or the

NDC plans local to Charteris cannot cover the demand for indoor sports and health

and fitness requirements then closure and sale of the Charteris site would result in a

gap in local provision for this area of Brent.

9.6 Vale Farm Sports Centre

Of the three centres under review, the Vale Farm site has perhaps the most potential

for a multi sport hub-site; however the lack of flexibility on land use results in the

capital costs identified within these options as potentially being solely funded by

Brent Council. As one of only two public access swimming pools in Brent (and given

the identified shortfall in water space) the timings of any options considered are

critical to ensure that the current level of pool space is maintained as a minimum.

The expanse of the site and the status and opportunities for the development of Vale

Farm Sports Ground as part of any future project has not been considered and costs

are not provided within the options presented in this review. The options concentrate

solely on the sports centre itself.

As identified within Section Five, demand for other types of facility provision such as

indoor tennis courts do exist across the borough. The suitability of this location for

the development of a ‘sports village’ concept should be further investigated in

context with other priority areas of need across Brent, particularly if the objectives of



any re-development are to tackle wider social issues. As a destination providing

multi-sport opportunities (ideally in co-ordination with the community sport club

structure of Vale Farm Sports Ground) the Vale Farm Sports Centre has much to

offer.

9.6.1 Option 1: Do minimum



immediate and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option does not involve any

significant improvements in the layout or functionality of the indoor facilities or any

investment in the adjoining external facilities. The estimated capital costs at current

2007 prices of this option are £2.58m based upon financial information provided by

Brent. A full conditions survey will need to be carried out, to confirm the minimum

amount of DDA, health and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken.

This option assumes at least part closure of the centre for 12 months.

Table 9.10: Vale Farm Option 1 - Outline Costs

Vale Farm Option 1 Do Minimum Capital 2,584,951 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 2,584,951 Income 34,514,338 Expenditure 46,952,305 Lifecycle 11,636,062 Finance Costs 4,134,238 Total costs/surplus 28,208,267 NPV 18,300,158

This option results in estimated total costs of £28.2 million over 25 years. The site

assessments of this review (Appendix 1) acknowledged the progressive

refurbishment being undertaken at Vale Farm by Leisure Connections. The facility is

however dated and initial indications suggest that the facility may be nearing the end

of its economic life; maintenance costs may increase markedly. The condition survey

is therefore entirely critical to this (and other options) for Vale Farm and will

undoubtedly have an impact on the renewal of any management contract in 2011.



Vale Farm Option 1 For Against + recognised need for existing facility mix

in current location and one of only two public access pools within Brent)

+ school use of facilities substantial + recent investment and progressive

refurbishment improving quality of some aspects of the facility (health and fitness facility in particular)

+ capital investment significant but lowest of all options

- high repair and maintenance costs that are likely to increase

- facility inefficient in current state - some facilities and ancillary facilities

not in demand and not fit for purpose (e.g. squash courts and team changing area)

- usage levels falling (as is customer satisfaction) and potential to increase participation may be limited

- facility reaching the end of economic life

- STP location and condition requires redress

- Future of athletics track and infield undetermined

- some disruption to existing operation and any required maintenance to pool would cause difficulties

9.6.2 Option 2: Refurbish Existing Facility Mix

This option involves undertaking the necessary amount of works to meet current


major and urgent backlog maintenance issues. This option involves some

improvements in the layout and functionality of the indoor facilities and some

investment into the external facilities to increase the income generation potential.

The estimated capital costs at current 2007 prices of this option are £6.4m.

Refurbishment costs are notably difficult to estimate without full survey data

provided or undertaken. This figure is therefore based upon the lower end estimate

provided for new-build costs from cost consultants Davis Langdon. A full conditions

survey will need to be carried out, to confirm the minimum amount of DDA, health

and safety and remedial works that need to be undertaken. This option assumes at

least part closure of the centre for 12 months, the closure of the swimming pool

would be a requirement for this option and sole reliance on one community pool

(Willesden Sports Centre) would not be an attractive prospect for Brent.




Vale Farm Option 2 Refurbishment Capital 6,462,377 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 6,462,377 Income 37,511,870 Expenditure 46,749,019 Lifecycle 9,308,850 Finance Costs 10,335,595 Total costs/surplus 28,881,595 NPV 18,815,930

Over 25 years the total costs are slightly higher than Option 1. It is estimated that

the capital costs associated with the refurbishment would be absorbed through an

increase in income as well as an improvement in operation efficiencies. Investment

into the outdoor facility provision (refurbishing STP and developing use for grass

pitches) provides an attractive element to this option.

The scale of refurbishment is difficult to ascertain without the survey information and

full survey information. Therefore capital costs identified in this option would be

subject to further review and detailed investigations.

Vale Farm Option 2 For Against + recognised need for existing facility mix

in current location and one of only two public access pools within Brent)

+ school use of facilities substantial + some increase in usage and income

generation through improved facility provision and centre layout

+ incorporates improvements to the outdoor facilities

+ capital costs significant but lower than new build

- impact on facility efficiency and income generation significantly lower than new for new build

- facility reaching the end of economic life so value for money questionable

- disruption to existing operation and would require closure of pool

9.6.3 Option 3: New Build

This option involves the provision of a new 6,000sqm wet and dry leisure centre next

to the existing centre on the current disused athletics cinder track. The current

sports centres would then be demolished once the new centre becomes operational

and that space returned to outdoor sports space use. This will allow continuity of



provision and minimise inconvenience to users. This option assumes that there is

space to safely construct a new centre whilst keeping the current facility open. The

centre will consist of 25m competition pool, learner/training pool, sports hall, large

gym, aerobics studios, community café, internal and external changing and flexible

spaces for community use. The estimated costs of this option at current prices are

£12.9m.


Vale Farm Option 3 New Build Capital 12,924,754 Enabling Development 0 Council Contribution 12,924,754 Income 46,325,300 Expenditure 44,086,142 Lifecycle 6,981,637 Finance Costs 22,166,823 Total costs/surplus 26,909,302 NPV 18,028,110

Over 25 years, the total costs associated with new build are £26.9 million; below the

costs estimated for Options 1 and 2 as a result of increased income generation and

reductions in running costs.

The immediate capital costs associated with the new build are significant and

enabling development at this site is not possible, however alternative sources of

funding may be sought. As identified within the site assessment (Appendix 1)

access and public transport to this facility is not as good as elsewhere; the location

generally is a lesser priority for investment than other areas of the borough.

As identified above, the costs associated with this option are not inclusive of any

capital investment into the Vale Farm Sports Ground and the cost implications of this

should be explored further.

Vale Farm Option 3 For Against + potential to develop modern centre

with fit for purpose facility mix and design which could increase usage and participation (and income)

+ opportunity to explore the

- capital costs significant and no enabling development possible

- not regarded as an ideal location for the development of a major sports facility due to issues around access



development of Vale Farm Sports Ground, moving towards a multi-sport hub site

+ could allow the development of a new facility whilst the existing centre remains open, minimising disruption, particularly to swimming

+ represents best value for money long term

+ regarded as preferred option by LB Brent Planning department

and public transport and in relation to other priority areas of the borough

9.6.4 Option 4: Facility Closure

As identified above, a detailed condition survey and further investigations of the

facility may determine the need for improvements and maintenance that are not

economically viable. This will influence further the consideration by Brent as to the

most cost effective way forward.

The planning constraints on the Vale Farm site result in a limitation of the future use

of the overall site. In this situation, without enabling development the site has little

residual value and whilst facility closure of Vale Farm would result in savings to Brent

for the on-going management and maintenance of the facility, the loss to community

sport (in a borough with notably low participation levels) is considered by the Project

Team a far greater issue. Reducing Brent’s community swimming pool stock to one

from levels that are already critically low should be avoided.

Vale Farm Option 4 For Against + savings in on-going management and

maintenance (which may be significant if the condition survey determines that the facility is not structurally sound

- site protected by planning policy and improvement of facilities recognised as a priority

- currently one of only two public access swimming pools in Brent

- closure would not be a popular decision locally

- future use for the site would require determining, no enabling development possible



9.6.5 Vale Farm Summary of Options

Over 25 years the cost efficiencies and potential for increased income generation

through new build represent a total cost that is below the do minimum and

refurbishment options. The additional benefits are clear of a fit for purpose leisure

centre in relation to increasing participation levels and associated social benefits.

Facility refurbishment would require a period of facility closure which could be

avoided through new build (on the assumption that the development of the new

facility adjacent to existing is feasible).

Table 9.13: Vale Farm Options 1 to 4 - Outline Costs

Option1 Do Minimum


Option 3 New Build

Option 4 Facility Closure

Capital 2,584,951 6,462,377 12,924,754 Enabling Development 0 0 0 Council Contribution 2,584,951 6,462,377 12,924,754 Income 34,514,338 37,511,870 46,325,300 Expenditure 46,952,305 46,749,019 44,086,142 Lifecycle 11,636,062 9,308,850 6,981,637 Finance Costs 4,134,238 10,335,595 22,166,823 Total Costs/Surplus 28,208,267 28,881,595 26,909,302 NPV 18,300,158 18,815,930 18,028,110

NA

9.7 Combined Summary of Options

Table 9.14 below sets out a summary of the total project costs and a combination of

the figures across the three centres for the various options presented. These are set

against the current projected current spend on the three centres revenue inflated by

RPI over 25 years which provides an useful indicator of baseline costs.

The figures indicate that the do minimum and refurbishment options do not

represent value for money compared against the build options. Combined, new build

options fall below projected current spend. As discussed, this is primarily because

the new build solutions will all greatly increase the levels of income generation at

each of the centres through the provision of more attractive and more efficient

facilities. Coupled with some enabling development, in the case of Bridge Park, this

allows revenue savings to be recycled into supporting the costs of investment.



Table 9.14: Options for Brent Leisure Centres - Combined Outline Costs

Facility / option Total over 25 years

NPV

Bridge Park

Do minimum £23.56m £15.25m



New build and total site redevelopment NA NA

Facility closure and site redevelopment NA NA

Charteris


Refurbishment (£12k) £110k

New Build (£731k) (£276k)

Facility closure and site redevelopment (residential)

NA NA

Vale Farm




Facility closure NA NA

All Centres Combined

Do Minimum £53.73m £34.82m



Facility closures NA NA



Facility / option Total over 25 years

NPV

Projected current spend £28.08m £17.63

The following section of this document provides a conclusion to the review alongside

recommendations and next steps for the LB Brent to consider.



10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

To assist LB Brent in establishing the current status of the centres and to determine

the future requirements, this review has provided borough wide facility analysis, site

specific issues (design and condition, planning and financial), strategic context and

the key issues established through consultation with key stakeholders. The research

has culminated in a number of options for each centre with broad capital costs and

revenue implications identified.

The final section of this review considers the best fit solution for Brent by evaluating

the options under the headings of: Cost Effectiveness, Deliverability and Borough-

wide impact. The review concludes with a priority order to progress the potential

options under consideration.

10.1 Cost Effectiveness

The costs appraisals provide evidence that the do minimum and refurbishment

options for all three centres do not represent value for money compared against the

new build options. The potential for enabling development at the Bridge Park site

makes this a stand out opportunity; however the complexities of the site and the

ownership of the adjacent Unisys site require resolving prior to progression. New

build at Vale Farm would also prove most attractive but there is a lack of enabling

development and a potential conflict for funding over the development of additional

leisure facility elsewhere in the borough (notably the swimming needs within Brent).

Do minimum options at any of the three centres do not represent an opportunity to

improve many of the design, layout and other key issues that are evident at the

three centres and those issues which Brent were keen to overcome at the outset of

this study. The impact over the forthcoming years in relation to participation is

unlikely to do more than match current trends; it is in fact likely to decrease through

further deterioration in facility quality. Dependant on scale, refurbishment has the

potential to increase participation and improve income at all three centres but the

indicative figures do not represent value for money as compared to new build

options. The Consultant Team have utilised high end estimates in the approach to

the provision of outline capital costs for new build options. There is however

recognition of the potential for LB Brent to work with contractors to reduce capital



cost through economies of scale and application of design and build process.

Equally, lower specification build options could represent a means of reducing the

initial capital outlay but this may result in a less sustainable facility with a shorter

lifespan. Long term value for money should be fully investigated for any preferred

development options before progressing in this manner.

The impact of facility closure varies from site to site. Enabling development at Bridge

Park and Charteris represents a potential return for the Council, however in both

cases the need to re-provide (certainly at Bridge Park and possibly with Charteris)

would have a significant impact on the cost effectiveness. Facility closure at Vale

Farm is not seen as preferable given the potential the site has and its importance to

community sport in Brent.

10.2 Deliverability

Deliverability refers predominantly to new build options at each of the three sites.

Understandably, given the variation in potential projects, their issues and

characteristics range considerably.

Across all three centres new build (or major refurbishment) of Charteris is the most

deliverable option available to Brent council. The scale of the project suggests a

shorter timeframe than major developments at Bridge Park or Vale Farm and

following initial review, the site issues are not complex. The critical factor in this case

is the need to determine the level of additional sports hall space to be provided

locally through the development of a project as part of the South Kilburn NDC or at a

school site (possibly St Augustine, through the Building Schools for the Future

programme).

As discussed, the development of the Bridge Park site hinges on the complexities of

the site, not least, the future of the business units and community facilities, the

exact conditions of the GLC covenant and a potential site for re-location of the

neighbouring breakers yard. Delivery of the Bridge Park project without coming to a

conclusion over the Unisys site is a major decision for Brent Council to make before

further progression. The costs of the Unisys site (both in terms of capital outlay and

potential legal costs) do appear prohibitive. However the investment into new

facilities (and possible residential units to fund new development) could be offset by



the poor state of the Unisys buildings and any negative impact it may still have

adjacent to the site.

The key factors relevant to the Vale Farm project revolve around possible sources of

funding. The site does not hold any residual value which could be tapped into to fund

any developments on site. The potential for this wet, dry and outdoor sports complex

(with club partners adjacent to the site) is notable, however this comes at a

significant capital costs, the majority of which would need to be borne from Brent’s

own funds.

10.3 Borough-wide Impact Through capacity ratio analysis and the findings of the FPM, this review has provided

clear evidence of the demand for the existing all three centres in situ; the case for

Bridge Park being notably strong.

Water space at Vale Farm is clearly the most essential element of the facility mix and

if possible, this should be protected at least until additional water space is developed.

In terms of health and fitness, the shortfall of public access provision dictates that

any future development at either one of the three sites should seek to increase

capacity of this element.

Other areas of the borough are heavily deficient in sports facility provision. The

development of another swimming pool (alongside sports hall and health and fitness

facility provision) within the north central area of the borough is regarded to be the

highest priority for the Council. Other opportunities to add to and improve the

boroughs facility stock, such as through BSF, should be fully explored, particularly

local to Charteris Sports Centre.

10.3.1 Third Pool Site

Whilst the review was not commissioned to consider any new facilities across the

borough, it is clear that Brent has a notable shortfall in swimming provision.



The areas of need and the borough-wide analysis, as well as indication from the

consultation process, has identified that the central and north central areas of the

Brent would prove the most effective location for any new facility.

Significant further work is required around planning, site assessments, and feasibility

and in line with the capital costs considerations within the Review, the overall

budgetary impact for the council, before any decisions can be made. Further

investigations should also be conducted in co-ordination with planning for the future

of Vale Farm Sports Centre to determine the lifespan of the existing facility, further

clarification of the capital cost associated with new build or refurbishment at Vale

Farm and the affordability of completing this as well as developing a third pool site

within the borough.

10.4 How Brent Moves Forward – Priorities for Development

The strategic review has focused on the current leisure centres in Brent providing an

outline as to the needs and priorities for Brent for future provision and the best value

for money solutions to meeting identified local and borough wide strategic need. The

review process has however also clearly confirmed that the development of a new

swimming pool facility would address the most prominent needs within the borough

and the shortfalls identified.

As agreed with the Client Team at LB Brent at the outset of this project, this review

does not provide any detailed analysis of the development of a new pool, having

concentrated on the solutions and options for the three study centres specific.

However, moving forward with the options presented for the three centres is of

course influenced by the need for increasing the provision of swimming in Brent and

its impact across the borough in relation to levels of participation and activity.

What follows is the Consultant Team’s priority list for development by LB Brent and a

brief explanation of the key issues which influence both the position of the project on

the priority list and the ability of Brent to realise any new development proposed.




Key Issues

1 New Pool New build swimming pool

Borough wide strategic facility deficiency Potential to have significant impact upon levels of activity and participation as has been witnessed recently at Willesden Sports Centre. Locational factors remain undetermined but central and north areas of borough show greatest need. Funding and capital costs undetermined at this stage as not part of original strategic review process. Dry side mix and potential for dual use centre has not been investigated but should be considered as a priority. Key issues influencing delivery include

o Identification of a suitable and affordable site.

o Brent identifying site specific capital or S106 fund for example to provide funding towards new development.

o Further survey works on current leisure stock (Vale Farm in particular) do not lead to significant budget and funding having to be diverted to keeping current stock viable.

Next Steps Required

2. Fully detailed feasibility study and business plan for the third pool site for decision alongside the leisure stock changes before summer 2008.

2 Bridge Park New build dry side sport and community facilities

The affordability of the project has been assessed as part of the review and the mixed use development with housing highlights that a new build project is affordable for Brent set against the current cost of the facilities in situ.




Key Issues

The Consultant Team recommend that due to the complexities of the surrounding area, the Bridge Park site alone is developed for leisure and housing on the understanding with Brent planning department that the Unisys site will be given some priority for future development. The development of the Bridge Park site would provide an affordable leisure facility and have a very positive impact upon the quality of facilities on offer for the local catchment and for the borough in general. Key issues influencing delivery include

o Housing valuations and planning can be realised

o GLC covenant is not prohibitive o Planning and regeneration team

commit to Unisys site long term regeneration

Next Steps Required

2. Fully detailed design and feasibility for the Bridge Park site.

3 Charteris New build health

and fitness facility The smallest of the main sites scoring high on affordability and deliverability, however it would not have such an impact upon the overall borough wide levels of provision outside of health and fitness, given its scale and thus is less of a priority than the leading 2 projects. The continued provision of this local community focused facility is dependent upon the plans being discussed for leisure provision due to the local needs (and planning priority for indoor space). Key issues influencing delivery include

o Progress and timing of any new




Key Issues

developments and provision of indoor sports space, notably the NDC project and St Augustine’s school.

o Budgetary issues for the first 2 priority projects and the potential need to channel site value for Charteris into new pool site as a higher priority project.

Next Steps Required

3. Leisure team to gain a steer on the leisure mix in the NDC project by March 2008.

4. Await detailed outcomes of priority projects 1 and 2 and review site options for Charteris.

4 Vale Farm New build wet and dry side sports complex incorporating outdoor sports facilities

The impact of Vale Farm would be felt across the borough however it is a longer term vision at present than the needs identified in the review. The needs of the new swimming pool and the affordability of Bridge Park and Charteris place them higher in terms of priorities for Brent. Questions remain over the longevity of current building which need to be answered and the key issues is that the on-going provision of swimming in Brent is protected and increased. Key issues influencing delivery include

o Budgetary issues from the leading priority projects

o The need to ensure continued service delivery of swimming in particular on the site, given borough wide shortfall at present.

o Clarity on the longevity of the building and if the immediate to medium term provision for swimming is to be under threat and additional financial resources are required to be diverted to this




Key Issues

project.

Next Steps Required

3. Vale Farm intrusive condition survey to determine whether immediate remedial action is required to extend on-going service.

4. A more in depth design and business planning process to determine both economic life of facility and more detailed capital cost of the facility changes proposed should be put up alongside the other 3 projects to assist in decision making for summer 2008.

10.5 Recommendations and Further Information Required In order for Brent to gain further clarity on the options as presented within this

Review further technical works are required as touched upon above and presented in

more detail below.

10.5.1 Surveys

Structural condition surveys for all three centres need to be commissioned and

evaluated to further inform the suitability and viability of any option pursued. The

documentation used to inform this Review has allowed outline estimates of capital

investments required and greater detail of the financial implications of repair

maintenance costs over the necessary time frame are vital.

10.5.2 Land and Site Considerations

In relation to Bridge Park in particular, full clarification of the key issues (detailed

previously) should be deemed a priority to provide better clarity. Land valuations for

both Charteris and some further information for Vale Farm also require further

scrutiny.

10.5.3 Capital Cost and Feasibility



Upon receipt of this study report and the agreement of proceeding with any proposed

survey works, facility, investment and management changes, Brent should appoint a

QS Team to assess, review and present further cost analysis of the options presented

to ensure full capital cost certainty. Each individual centre should be then subject to

further financial scrutiny and detailed business planning to inform future decisions

and investments into Brent’s Sports Centres.

10.6 Conclusion

It is clear that LB Brent has a number of important decisions to make as to how to

progress with the identified and required changes to the current leisure facility stock

and sports centres in the borough.

It is also clear that the current situation does not provide value for money set

against the proposed new build outline costs which have been identified.

The borough as a whole has a significant way to go to both drive up the levels of

participation and also address the facility shortfalls and dated leisure stock which is

currently on offer. As demonstrated by Willesden Sports Centre, modern, fit for

purpose facilities have the potential to make a major impact by attracting

considerably higher usage levels.

The Consultant Team feels that the completion of this review process will enable LB

Brent to achieve further positive change through significant additions and

improvements to the borough’s leisure facility stock.



APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: SITE SPECIFIC REVIEWS (UNDER SEPARATE COVER) APPENDIX 2: FPM BRIEF APPENDIX 3: - LB BRENT GRASS PITCHES (ACTIVE PLACES POWER DATABASE) APPENDIX 4: PLANNED SPORT AND LEISURE FACILITY DEVELOPMENT

WITHIN BRENT’S NEIGHBOURING BOROUGHS



APPENDIX 2: FPM BRIEF LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT ACTIVE PLACES POWER + BRIEF FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING ASSESSMENT FOR SWIMMING POOLS AND SPORTS HALLS Assessment based on application of Active Places Power + (formerly the Facilities Planning Model) August 2007 Brief Description of Project To assess the future demand and provision of swimming pools and sports halls in Brent, particularly in terms of increasing population and meeting unmet demand within the borough. Alongside Brent, the study area is also to include the London Boroughs of Harrow, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, City of Westminster, Camden and Barnet. Assessment of the current demand and supply for swimming pools and sports halls in the study area i.e. 2007. Assessment of the demand and supply in 2016 for swimming pools and sports halls in the study area including all known commitments and closures (detailed below) and utilising the GLA population projections for Brent and the surrounding London Boroughs. Appendix 1 Details of Pools and Halls not included in the Facilities Database to be included. Appendix 2 Policy Implications and Notes for Information SWIMMING POOLS All runs to –

o Include all operational swimming pools available for community use i.e. pay and play, membership, sports club/community association.

o Exclude all swimming pools that are identified as private use only and no public access.

o Exclude all pools where the main tank is less than 20m in length or is less than 160 sqm4.

4 160sqm is equivalent to a 20m x 8m pool. This assumption will exclude small pools such as plunge and hotel pools.



o Exclude all outdoor pools (lidos) o Include national default weightings for swimming pools o Include commitments for new build, refurbishments or known closures of

existing pools where there is an increase or decrease in the existing water space in Brent or the surrounding study area.

o Include IMD score of output areas to be used to limit attractiveness of commercial pools.

o Include GLA population data for London Boroughs Run 1 Swimming Pools – 2007 operational pools This run is to establish the baseline data, current demand and supply, current areas of unmet demand and assist Brent’s future plans to address potential priority locations for future development. This run is to establish the baseline – what is happening now.

o Exclude Grove Park School in Brent (site ID 1201512) o Exclude Kentish Town Sports Centre in Camden (site ID 1002312) currently

closed due to Health and Safety o All swimming pools in the surrounding study area, which meet the

criteria, set out under run assumptions above.

Run 2 Swimming Pools – 2016 operational pools This run is to establish the overall, satisfied and unmet demand for 2016 and is to include all known commitments and closures. This run is to establish the future needs within and surrounding Brent.

o Exclude current Northolt Swimarama (site ID 1002355) o Include new/replacement Northolt Swimarama on same site

Dimensions of new pools: - Main pool 25m x 17m - Training pool 16m x 12m

Community access to pools – - Mon – Fri 6am – 10pm - Sat/Sun 8am – 6pm

o Exclude Grove Park School (site ID 1201512) o Include newly refurbished Kentish Town Sports Centre (change to weighting

only no increase in water space) due to re-open 2010 (site ID 1002312) o Include newly refurbished Marshall Street Leisure Centre (change to weighting

only no increase in water space) refurbishment and opening due 2012 o Include new pool at Holland Park School (site ID 1200381), opening 2012 o Exclude the current Acton Swimming Baths site (site ID 1002193) o Include new 50m pool in Ealing at the current Acton Swimming Baths site

opening in 2012 - Main pool 50m x 25m - Training pool 16m x 12m

Community access to pools – - Mon – Fri 6am – 10pm



- Sat/Sun 8am – 6pm o Include the reduction of Gurnell Pool (site ID 1002281) from 50m to 25m

length. SPORTS HALLS All runs to –

o Include all operational sports halls available for community use i.e. pay and play, membership, sports club/community association.

o Exclude all sports halls that are identified as private use only and no public access.

o Exclude all sports halls smaller than 3 courts o Include national default weightings o Include IMD for commercial sports halls o Include GLA population data for London Boroughs

Run 1 Sports Halls – 2007 operational halls This run is to establish the baseline data, current demand and supply, current areas of unmet demand and assist Brent’s future plans to address potential priority locations for future development. This run is to establish the baseline – what is happening now.

o All sports halls in the surrounding study area, which meet the criteria, set out under run assumptions above.

Run 2 Sports Halls – 2016 operational halls This run is to establish the overall, satisfied and unmet demand for 2016 and is to include all known commitments and closures. This run is to establish the future needs within and surrounding Brent.

o Include replacement of Reynolds Sports Centre, LB Ealing (site ID 1002375) on the current site but with no increase in sports hall space

o Include new indoor sports hall at the New Westminster Academy, LB Westminster

o Include new indoor sports hall at new Pimlico School, LB Westminster o Include new indoor sports hall at Adelaide Road, LB Camden. o Include new sports hall at Greenford Sports Centre, LB Ealing (site ID

1002279)on current site but with no increase in sports hall space o Include new sports hall at Copland School, LB Brent o Include new sports hall at Wembley Academy, LB Brent o All sports halls in the surrounding study area, which meet the criteria,

set out under run assumptions



Details of Pools and Halls Not Included in the Facilities Database to be included in the analysis plus amendments Swimming Pools Swimming Pool

Dimensions Opening Hours

Community Use

X and Y co-ords

2007 or 2016 Run?

LB Kensington and Chelsea - Holland Park School pool

20m x 8m 6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends

Community Use outside of school core hours.

X 524948 Y 179954

In for 2016 run

LB Ealing – new 50m pool in Acton

Main pool 50m x 25m Teaching pool 16m x 12m

Weekdays 7am – 10pm Weekends 8am – 8pm

At all times X 520354 Y 180013

In for 2016 run

Kentish Town Sports Centre is currently shown on the database as closed, it will be reopen by 2016. Sports Halls BSF impacts on other boroughs and Brent itself. Facilities below denote those which are due to be completed, at present, before 2016. Sports Hall Dimensions Opening

Hours Community Use X and Y

co-ords 2007 or 2016 run?

LB Westminster - New Westminster Academy



X 525500 Y 182500

In for 2016 run

LB Westminster - Pimilco School



X 529431 Y 178226

In for 2016 run

LB Camden, Adelaide Road



X 526914 Y 184029

In for 2016 run

LB Brent Copland School

33m x 18m

6pm – 10pm Mon – Fri 9am – 5pm Weekends


X 518587 Y 185103

In for 2016 run



LB Brent Wembley Academy



X519300 Y 186514

In for 2016 run



APPENDIX 3 - LB BRENT GRASS PITCHES (ACTIVE PLACES POWER DATABASE)

Map Point Site Name Postcode Ward

Senior pitches

Junior pitches

Cricket pitches Access Type

1 CHALKHILL YOUTH CENTRE HA9 9DB

Barnhill Ward 2 1 Private Use

2 POPLAR GROVE PLAYING FIELDS HA9 9DB

Barnhill Ward 1 1


3 ACORN NURSERY HA9 6NF Tokyngton Ward 1 Private Use

4

TOKYNGTON RECREATION GROUND HA9 6JE

Tokyngton Ward 1 Pay and Play

5

CHURCH LANE RECREATION GROUND NW9 8ET Fryent Ward 3 Pay and Play

6

LONDON TRANSPORT SPORTS GROUND HA9 9JR

Barnhill Ward 4 Pay and Play

7

GIBBONS RECREATION GROUND

NW10 9BS

Stonebridge Ward 2 Pay and Play

8

ST JOSEPHS R.C. CATHOLIC JUNIOR SCHOOL HA9 6BE

Wembley Central Ward 1 Private Use

9

THE PAVILION AT STONEBRIDGE RECREATION GROUND

NW10 8LW

Stonebridge Ward 1 Private Use

10 PRESTON MANOR HIGH SCHOOL HA9 8NA

Preston Ward 3 Pay and Play

11

THE COPLAND COMMUNITY SCHOOL HA9 7DU

Wembley Central Ward 2 Free Public Access

12 GLADSTONE PARK NW10 1JH

Dudden Hill Ward 3 4 1 Free Public Access

13 PARK LANE PRIMARY SCHOOL HA9 7RY



14 FRYENT PRIMARY SCHOOL NW9 8JD Fryent Ward 1 Private Use

15 KINGSBURY TOWN FC NW9 7NE

Welsh Harp Ward 1 Private Use

16

OUR LADY OF GRACE RC JUNIOR SCHOOL NW2 6HS

Dollis Hill Ward 1 Private Use

17 TENTERDEN SPORTS GROUND

HA3 0QQ

Kenton Ward 1 Private Use

18 PRESTON PARK HA9 8RJ Preston Ward 1 1 Pay and Play

19 ROE GREEN PARK NW9 9PE Queensbury Ward 1 Pay and Play



Map Point Site Name Postcode Ward

Senior pitches

Junior pitches

Cricket pitches Access Type

20

ALPERTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) HA0 4PW

Wembley Central Ward 2 Free Public Access

21

CAPITAL CITY ACADEMY SPORTS FACILITIES

NW10 3ST



22 WILLESDEN SPORTS CENTRE

NW10 3QX

Willesden Green Ward 3 Pay and Play

23

WEMBLEY HIGH TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE HA0 3NT

Northwick Park Ward 3 1 1 Private Use

24 SUDBURY COURT SPORTS CLUB HA0 3LE

Sudbury Ward 2 Private Use

25

KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (LOWER SITE) NW9 9AT Fryent Ward 1 2 Private Use

26 KING EDWARD VII PARK

NW10 3AA

Willesden Green Ward 3 Pay and Play

27 BYRON COURT PRIMARY SCHOOL HA0 3SF

Northwick Park Ward 1 Private Use

28 CLAREMONT HIGH SCHOOL HA3 0UH

Kenton Ward 1 Private Use

29

KINGSBURY HIGH SCHOOL (UPPER SITE) NW9 9JR

Queensbury Ward 1 4 Private Use

30 NORTHWICK PARK HA0 3TQ Northwick Park Ward 13 Pay and Play

31 ETON GROVE OPEN SPACE NW9 9LA

Queensbury Ward 1 Pay and Play

32

QUEENS PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL

NW6 7BQ

Brondesbury Park Ward 2 Private Use

33 JOHN BILLAM SPORTS GROUND HA3 0JH

Kenton Ward 1


34 MAYBANK OPEN SPACE HA0 2TE

Sudbury Ward 1 Pay and Play

35

NORTH WEST LONDON JEWISH DAY SCHOOL NW6 7PP

Brondesbury Park Ward 1 Private Use

36

UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER (HARROW SITE) HA1 3TP

Northwick Park Ward 2 Pay and Play

37 SUDBURY HILL PLAYING FIELDS HA1 3QP

Sudbury Ward 3 Private Use



APPENDIX 4: Planned Sport and Leisure Facility Development within Brent’s

Neighbouring Boroughs

Kensington & Chelsea

General Comments

o New build facilities are extremely unlikely to be provided given the lack of

available land or indeed need.

o There is a shortage of facilities in the south of the borough, so the aim is

to replace or refurbish existing facilities, but with only very modest

increases in capacity likely.

Chelsea Sports Centre

o Currently undergoing a £1m refurbishment to bring the centre up to date;

no net additional provision however.

Kensington Leisure Centre

o Planned upgrade for pool plant in 2007/08, but no net additional provision.

Schools development

o Holland Park School: existing school, being redeveloped to include a

community pool and four court hall, with community use planned. Planning

permission granted June 2007

o West Chelsea Academy – new school awaiting planning permission (Sept

07); likely to have four court hall but little community use planned.

Barnet

General Comments

o No imminent plans for new build or major expansion or refurbishment

Hendon Leisure Centre

o £600,000 refurbishment in February 2007. In the future redevelopment is

proposed on a like for like basis, as part of the wider Brent Cross



Cricklewood regeneration programme. Replacement would be part of

Phase 2 ie 2012 – 2017.

Copthall Leisure Centre

o No current plans for redevelopment, but possibly in the future

Burnt Oak Leisure Centre

o Only a few years old, dry side provision only.

Welsh Harp Sailing Lake

o Main building has been closed on safety grounds. The council is looking to

rebuild – plans exist but not being taken forward in the near future.

Camden

General comments

o No imminent plans for new build, or plans for major refurbishment.

Kentish Town Baths

o Closed in 2007 due to health and safety issues. Currently being

refurbished at a cost of around £25m (from LB Camden capital fund), and

due to re-open in 2010.

Swiss Cottage

o Successfully redeveloped into new wet and dry side facilities in 2006,

centrally funded from capital funds; no plans for further expansion.

Kings Cross Regeneration

o Outline planning applications by developer Argent for the 67 acre 'King's

Cross Central' brown field site approved in March 2006. Proposals include a

leisure centre with 25m swimming pool, indoor sports hall and multi use

games area. Timescale: 10 to 12 years.



Ealing

Swift Road Outdoor Sports Centre

o Full-size artificial turf pitch and multi-use games areas to be used by

schools and the community. The centre was due to open in summer 2007.

Dormers Wells Leisure Centre

o The swimming pool will have two new changing rooms and the existing

pool changing rooms will be fully refurbished to benefit both school and

community users. Due to be completed in summer 2007.

Perivale Park Athletics Track

o Work on a new purpose-built pavilion is complete.

Gurnell Leisure Centre

o Developments will see a complete transformation of the first floor areas

and wet change facility. Part of the first floor will be developed into a state

of the art 100-station fitness centre with dedicated male and female dry-

side changing rooms. The front of house and reception area will be re-

configured and enhanced to improve access for all users. The

refurbishment to all areas of the wet changing room facility will include

showers, toilets and changing area. The health suite will also be upgraded

with new facilities. Taking place currently.

Acton Swimming Baths

o A refurbishment of the health suite at Acton Swimming Baths is planned

during 2007. Replacement of the existing pools with a 50m pool is planned

for 2012.

Reynolds Sports Centre



o As part of a PFI project to rebuild Acton High School, Reynolds Sports

Centre has been replaced, and includes a new sports hall, larger gym, and

a small hall for aerobics and other classes.

Greenford Sports Centre

o This project has also been developed as part of the PFI scheme. Like the

Reynolds project there will be a new sports hall, larger gym and small hall

for other activities. The new centre is due to open by September 2008.

There is a number of long-term project plans including:

A new pool for Northolt

o A detailed feasibility study for plans to replace Northolt Swimarama has

now been completed. As well as a new, larger swimming pool, it is

proposed that the centre will offer an improved fitness gym, dance studio,

community meeting rooms, library services and a Metropolitan Police Safer

Neighbourhoods base. Work is due to commence on the new facilities by

the end of 2007.

A 50m pool in Acton

o As above

o Active Ealing produced a swimming pool strategy in 2005, which is

currently being updated. This aims to replace outdated facilities and

increase uptake of swimming and water sport.

Hammersmith & Fulham

General Comments

o No imminent plans for new build as there is no available land;

development mainly in the form of refurbishment of existing facilities.

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/opencms/services/leisure/sports_and_leisure/sports_and_leisure_centres/reynolds_sports_centre.html

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/opencms/services/leisure/sports_and_leisure/sports_and_leisure_centres/reynolds_sports_centre.html



o The new administration is focused on improving parks provision: bid

currently in for development of parks but unlikely to have a sports

element.

Fullham Pools

o Offers 25m, 8 lane gala pool; 25m, 6 lane fitness pool; 11m x 7m teaching

pool; O2 Gym; All-weather tennis courts. Opened in 2006, operated by

Virgin.

Phoenix Fitness Centre and Janet Adegoke Swimming Pool

o 25m five lane pool plus fitness facilities

Linford Christie Outdoor Sports Centre

o Full range of athletics facilities, plus rugby pitch, ATP for hockey and

football, changing facilities.

o Received Barclays Space for Sport funding of £1.5m towards

redevelopment in 2006.

o Possibility in the future of siting a 4 court sports hall at the site, but no

funding available at the moment.

Bishops Park development

o Broad range of proposals as part of local masterplan, including the

redevelopment/expansion of tennis courts and the siting of a City Tennis

Club. Funding is agreed in outline, awaiting decision on planning

permission for floodlighting.

Harrow

Existing facilities in need of change:

1. Harrow Leisure Centre – 1960s built, 9 court sports hall, 25m pool,

Learner pool, health and fitness facilities.

2. Hatch End Pool – 1930s listed building.

3. Bannister Track – 8 lane athletics track.



A recent feasibility study defined objectives for remodeling leisure provision

within the borough and Leisure Connection has come up with a three site

development package:

1. A combination of 2 and the 3 above, on one site, featuring a 25m pool

and earner pool, outdoor athletics track, indoor track, grandstand.

2. New Harrow Leisure Centre – see below.

3. New facility in the south of the borough, which is currently under-

provided for: 4 court sports hall, 25m pool and heath and fitness

proposed.

Council estimates it can generate around £21m in capital receipts from land

sales, and is also looking for a management company who can commit

significant funding in return for long term contract.

Harrow Leisure Centre

o Plans for complete redevelopment of the centre, which currently offers two

indoor pools (main pool 33.3 metres and a teaching pool) a large fitness

centre, aerobics centre, 8 squash courts, indoor sports halls (2 x 5 courts),

rock climbing wall.

Roger Bannister sports centre

o In 2003 the centre was refurbished to provide upgraded changing rooms,

communal area, a new warm up room with weights and brand new

athletics equipment such as hurdles and javelins

Westminster

Marshall Street Leisure Centre

o A deal has been finalised for the regeneration of Grade II listed Marshall

Street Baths in Soho. It is hoped that the centre will be open to the public

by the first half of 2009. (Planning application was submitted in April

2007).



Westminster Academy/Academy Sport

o £31.6 million new secondary school with school/community sports facilities

including outdoor multi-use sports pitches and a tennis court which are

floodlit, a 4 court sports hall, dance/exercise studio and changing

accommodation.

Paddington Recreation Ground

o 28 acre park with health and fitness facilities, sports pitches, tennis courts.

Currently mid-way through a £3.6m regeneration including a new full size

ATP, resurfaced tennis courts.

Jubilee Sports Centre

o Features a 25m pool, sports hall, health and fitness. 1970s build.

Undergoing limited refurbishment currently.

Moberley Sports Centre

o Westminster-run but actually in Brent

o Modest dryside facilities; replacement of 6 court hall floor currently taking

place

APPENDIX 5: Cost Appraisal Assumptions



■ Current pricing policies and concessions will continue

■ Income and costs inflated by RPI (2.5%)

■ Construction spread over 18 months for new builds, 12 months for refurbishments

■ Lifecycle costs at 1.25% - 2% of initial construction costs per annum inflated included for each option

■ Any Council contributions financed through prudential borrowing at 4.82% over 25 years

■ Figures exclude demolition costs

■ Adjustment made for financial impact of rolling centre closures for refurbishment options

■ NPVs based on discount factor of 3.5%

■ No additional allowance made for risk

■ Bridge Park includes only for limited non sports provision

Documents

STRATEGIC REVIEW OF SPORTS CENTRES IN BRENT FULL … Review of Sports... · NUMBER SECTION P EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 ... 3 STRATEGIC CONTEXT 23 4 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 38 5 LONDON BOROUGH