Agenda item

To discuss a presentation in respect of the Pitch Strategy.

Following introductions, the Parks and Landscape Manager gave a presentation in respect of the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS).  The presentation gave definitions of PPSs and outlined the proposed outcomes of the PPS, Sport England guidance, the scope of the PPS, facilities in the scope, sports in the scope, benchmarking of local pitch strategies, proposed governance, and resources and delivery.  There would be links between the PPS and the Sports Development Strategy which was in its fourth year.

The proposed outcomes of the PPS were an assessment of the current quantity and quality of pitch provision and changing facilities, demand, and current and future capacity and need.  These would enable provision of an evidence base to support decision-making, develop local standards of provision, justify developer contributions, help determine planning applications, prioritise resources and projects, identify opportunities for improving access to facilities, support delivery of other Council Strategies and services, and support National and Regional Governing body objectives.

The Sport England Guidance featured a ten step approach to developing and delivering a PPS.

Within the scope of the PPS were Guildford Borough Council, parish council and club/sports organisation owned/managed facilities and private and non-private educational provision.  Military provision fell outside the scope.  Facilities within the scope were public and private grass facilities, artificial pitches, tennis courts, athletics tracks and changing facilities.  The sports included in the scope were athletics, bowls, cricket, football, hockey, lacrosse, netball, rugby and tennis.

Local pitch strategies in Runnymede, Spelthorne, Surrey Heath, Waverley and Woking Boroughs were benchmarked for comparison purposes.  The benchmarking related to the period of the strategies, the scope and learning, the contractor and the costs.

The proposed governance consisted of a Project Board to project manage delivery of the strategy and agree its scope, outcomes and objectives.  Membership would be a director, relevant officers and Lead and other Councillors.  There would also be a Steering Group to drive the Strategy’s development and delivery of its actions and recommendations over the plan period.  The suggested composition of the Group would be Parks and Countryside, Leisure Development, Planning Policy, National and Regional Governing Bodies of Sport, Sport England, Active Surrey County Sport Partnership, Surrey Sports Park/University and Guildford Education Partnership.  Consultees would be local sports clubs, schools, sporting organisations and parish councils.

Resources and delivery featured use of external consultants to develop the PPS and undertake audits and assessments to ensure delivery in a timely fashion and to support the revision of the Council’s Sports Strategy in 2020.  The benefits included having neighbouring authority data / national data readily to hand, expertise to aid rapid delivery of the PPS and experience of Sport England methodology.  The estimated delivery timescale was 18 months and the stages were reporting to the EAB, arranging a funding virement, establishing the Project Board, procuring consultants, setting up the Steering Group, and developing and adopting the PPS.

The following points arose from related questions and discussion:

·             Although there were some good military facilities at Pirbright Camp, there was limited community use of them owing to security restrictions and they did not meet the criteria of the PPS;

·             In terms of representation of small sports clubs on the Steering Group, member organisations such as the local Sports Council and Active Surrey would represent all sports and sports clubs irrespective of their size and consultation exercises would seek the views of all clubs;

·             The PPS would provide evidence and justification for Section 106 funding and sponsorship.

·             Although there was only one permanent athletics track in the Borough, located at the Spectrum, some schools had temporary tracks painted onto grass during the summer months.

·             The PPS sought to cater for all ages.

·             The health benefits of alternative sports such as Tai Chi, which was growing in popularity in the Borough, particularly for older people, were highlighted.

·             Artificial grass was preferred to Astro Turf as it was generally more suitable for sports pitches unless the temperature fell below 5 degrees centigrade.

·             Changing facilities should include provision of fresh drinking water and this would be taken into account when they were quality assessed.  As Sport England standards were high and costly to meet, slightly lower standards were considered to be acceptable by some National Governing Bodies.

·             A mental health outreach project was seeking to promote the health and wellbeing aspects of sport as an incentive for people to participate.

·             External consultants would be procured to deliver the Strategy and engaged using funding provided by a virement on a one-off basis to produce the PPS, which would then be implemented by the Council.  The Strategy would assist with determining and justifying associated costs and increased running costs were not envisaged unless new provision was made.  Community hire would provide a revenue stream.

·             Improvement to existing pitches to prevent flooding etc was welcomed.

The Lead Councillor thanked the EAB for its positive engagement and input and sought nominations for four Councillors representing the different political groups to join the Project Board in order to progress the development and delivery of the PPS without delay.  Councillors Paul Abbey, Steven Lee, Ramsey Nagaty and Jo Randall were nominated.