4. Regeneration Statement - New Bermondsey 2011/3.01 Supporting Reports (A4… · Regeneration...

Regeneration Statement

1

4. Regeneration Statement

Executive Summary

This Regeneration Statement outlines:

The current problems facing the Surrey Canal Site and North Lewisham in general, which

include a low skills base, reliance on employment in declining sectors, deprivation and

health inequalities;

It goes on to summarise the plans and policies currently being implemented by national,

regional and local authorities in order to address socio-economic problems through

regeneration;

It then highlights the „drivers of regeneration‟ – a broad outline of the measures that are

needed to redress the underlying problems facing the area and achieve positive community

and economic outcomes;

The Statement concludes with a summary of how the Surrey Canal Scheme, and its

individual elements will help to achieve these aims through economic growth, physical

regeneration, tackling social inequalities and deprivation, and the promotion of sport and

recreation as part of healthy lifestyles.

The proposals for Surrey Canal are an exceptional regeneration opportunity. North Lewisham suffers

from multiple problems of deprivation and only a development of this scale and quality can create the

critical mass needed to unlock the area‟s potential as a thriving community and a lively cultural quarter

on the doorstep of central London.

The key transformative aspects of the Proposed Development include:

Around 2,000 jobs on-site and in construction, across a wide range of skills, from entry level

roles suitable for local unemployed people, to the skilled and professional jobs the area

currently lacks.

Around 4,500 new residents in a balanced mix of tenures, diversifying and strengthening the

local community by increasing the proportion of working households locally, with a stake in

the future of the area.

London‟s Sporting Village, a regionally important cluster of new sports venues and training

facilities adding to the existing New Den and Lions Centre to create a new high profile sports

destination for the Capital.


2

Breaking down community severance, reconnecting the area through new walking routes

and high quality public realm, creating new places for local people and setting a new

benchmark for quality publicly accessible open space in the area.

A striking and attractive landmark development on a high-profile site on the approach to

London Bridge Station, seen by more than 50 million passengers a year it will transform

perceptions of North Lewisham. Together with the Sporting Village this will put the area on

the map, as a visitor destination known and loved by Londoners.

The sporting legacy of Surrey Canal not only creates jobs and attracts visitors, it also means

North Lewisham joins Stratford at the forefront of sports-led regeneration in London. It

creates opportunities to promote healthy, active lifestyles, and to engage disaffected young

people with constructive activities and positive life changes.

Surrey Canal, London‟s Sporting Village is a unique and powerful approach to regeneration, and will

be looked back on as one of the most important formative steps that created the future of North

Lewisham.

Introduction

This Regeneration Statement forms part of the wider Planning Application to the London Borough of

Lewisham (LBL) for the Proposed Development.

Located in the north-west of the borough in an area suffering from severe deprivation, this Proposed

Development has the potential to foster significant community, economic, physical and social benefits,

and can aid in the regeneration of North Lewisham as a strategic part of a network of urban renewal

in the wider area.

As such, the Application Site is highlighted by LBL as an area for major regeneration, to create new

jobs, homes and community facilities, new sporting facilities, an improved setting for Millwall Football

Club Stadium, new linkages and new publicly accessible open spaces in a safe and welcoming

environment.

In the wider context of London, Surrey Canal offers a major benefit with a pioneering programme of

sport-led regeneration, building in parallel with the significant legacy impacts of London‟s 2012

Olympic Games. It aims to provide a hub of high quality, comprehensive facilities for elite athletes, as

well as community-accessible sports, leisure and recreation facilities for residents and visitors.

The Site is in great need of investment in order to maximise the regeneration potential and build on an

already strong sporting heritage to create a community with healthy living as a central principle. There

is a policy-driven target to create a 'sense of place' through new buildings and contributions to an

enhanced street environment which would raise the overall standard of design and environmental


3

quality, improve permeability and accessibility, attract inward investment and improve vitality and

viability of the local economy through increased jobs and economic spend.


4

Part 1: The Local Context and Regeneration Objectives

This section identifies the current socio-demographic and economic context of the Surrey Canal area

and its strategic position in LBL and London, highlighting the existing problems of social deprivation

and economic decline that characterise the area. It goes on to identify the key national, regional and

local policies and initiatives relevant to baseline conditions that promote regeneration based on

promoting economic growth, the provision of new affordable homes, and redressing social and health

inequalities to promote sustainable communities.

The Socio-economic Context

1.1 The Application Site is in the north-west of the LBL, in the New Cross Ward, at the boundary

with the London Borough of Southwark (LBS). The Surrey Canal itself was built in 1809 and

stretched from Surrey Commercial Dock (Greenland Dock) to the Camberwell Basin,

transporting mostly coal, grain and timber. The canal was filled in in 1971 and became Surrey

Canal Road.

1.2 The Surrey Canal area was once a settlement on the periphery of London, and now forms

part of central London‟s urban landscape. The Site had a history of residential development

before it became a public park in 1972 and then the home of Millwall Football Club when the

New Den Stadium was opened in 1993 alongside light industrial and commercial floorspace.

Recently, the area has been in general decline in terms of economic and population trends

and physical infrastructure, with high unemployment, deprivation and poor health prevailing.

1.3 However, the wider North Lewisham and Southwark area is currently the subject of a

significant level of regeneration and inward investment, with a number of residential and

commercial developments in planning and under construction. The area benefits from

excellent accessibility, especially to central London, with South Bermondsey station (at the

northern corner of the Site) linking to London Bridge in 4 minutes, and the planned East

London Line Extension offering increased access. This is reflected through LBL‟s LDF Core

Strategy1, which states that “population growth and an increase in the number of households

is expected to be concentrated within the Evelyn, New Cross and Lewisham Central wards.

This is due in part to the major development and regeneration plans such as Convoys Wharf

and within the Lewisham Town Centre”.

Deprivation and Crime

1.4 The New Cross ward, which includes the Application Site to the west, suffers from significant

deprivation in terms of the Government‟s 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)2, and

includes areas within the 10% and 20% most deprived areas in the UK, as highlighted in the

following map of the Surrey Canal and surrounding areas:


5

Figure 1 - Deprivation in the Surrey Canal Area (Government’s Indices of Multiple

Deprivation, 2007)

1.5 This is one of the most deprived parts of London and also the UK, making it a priority for

regeneration, and deprivation is particularly acute here in terms of the individual domains of

crime, employment, health, housing, income and living environment. The area shares similar

characteristics with a number of London‟s most deprived areas, reflected in the demographic

and economic profile of the local community, with a high proportion of people aged under 16,

a large Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) population, and a lower proportion of

residents with higher educational attainment. This is outlined in more detail in the following

paragraphs.

1.6 The North Lewisham area also has a relatively high prevalence of crime, with crime rates of

11.9 (incidences per 1,000 people) in New Cross ward in September 2010 compared to the

LBL average of 8.9 and London average of 9.6 in the same period. The majority of crimes

committed in New Cross were anti-social behaviour offences (128 of total 180 recorded

offences; crime rate of 8.5), followed by violence against the person (35 recorded offences;

crime rate of 2.3). These are also the most common type of offences in LBL and London3.

Young, Diverse Population

1.7 According to 2001 Census data, at 55.1% of the population, New Cross ward has a higher

proportion of younger working age people (aged 16-44) than LBL (49.9%) and London


6

(47.4%), reflecting a higher overall proportion of residents of working age (aged 16-64). The

population of New Cross ward has a younger profile than LBL and London, with 23.0% aged

under-16 compared to 21.1% at borough-level and 20.2% in London. It also has a lower

proportion of people of retirement age (65+), at 6.9% compared to 11.0% in LBL and 12.4% in

London (Census, 2001).

1.8 The New Cross ward shows a high level of ethnic diversity, with Black, Asian and Minority

Ethnic (BAME) groups accounting for 52.6% of residents, compared to 34.1% in LBL and

28.8% in London (Census, 2001). This BAME population at the local scale is predominantly

made up of a large proportion of Black African and Black Caribbean residents, accounting for

64% of all BAME residents and 34% of all residents. Mixed-race people account for a similar

proportion of residents in New Cross (4.6%) as LBL (4.2%) and London (3.2%), while the

local and borough-level has a lower proportion of Asian residents compared to London (3.5%

and 3.8% respectively, compared to 12.1%).

1.9 NHS Lewisham‟s report on North Lewisham Health Needs4 highlights the specific cultural

identities prevalent in the local area, for example there is a concentration of 3,500-4,000

Vietnamese residents in North Lewisham, many of whom live in the Deptford and New Cross

areas. The PCT highlights that the Vietnamese population experience many of the features of

a newly settled community, with many lacking fluent English, with high levels of

unemployment, low levels of educational achievement and tend not to access mainstream

services.

Local Housing Stock Deficiencies

1.10 The current stock of housing in the New Cross ward is predominantly flats, which account for

71.4% of all homes compared to 52% across the Borough. In addition, significantly higher

proportions are in social rented tenures (53%) compared to the Borough average of 35.6%

(Census, 2001). The housing stock is, in parts, dated and inappropriate for residents, with

30% of households in the ward „overcrowded‟ (32% when only social rented homes are

considered), compared to 17.6% across the Borough, according to 2001 Census data. In

addition, New Cross ward has among the highest proportion of dwellings in Council Tax

bands A and B (60.1%) in London (compared to the London average of 17%).

1.11 As such, LBL‟s Strategic Housing Market Assessment5 highlights that 1,300 new social rented

and 400 intermediate affordable homes have been delivered in the last five years, with private

and intermediate housing being provided in higher quantity.

Low Qualification Attainment and Skills Base

1.12 The working-age population of New Cross ward has a slightly higher proportion of residents

with no qualifications (24.5%) compared to LBL (24.2%) and London (23.7%) (Census, 2001).

In terms of higher-level qualifications, New Cross ward has a slightly lower proportion of


7

working-age residents with level 4/5 qualifications – equivalent to degree-level or higher –

(28.5%) compared to LBL (29.4%) and London (31.0%).

1.13 In terms of the occupation of residents, in total, 39.3% of working residents in the New Cross

ward are employed in „higher skilled‟ jobs, compared to 46.8% in LBL and 50.4% in London

(Census, 2001). A slightly higher proportion of New Cross ward residents are in mid-skilled

jobs (42.0%, compared to 38.6% for LBL and 35.8% for London), and a significantly larger

proportion are employed in lower skilled jobs (18.7%, compared to 14.6% in LBL and 13.9%

in London).

Economic Structure and Employment

1.14 North Lewisham has seen significant structural changes to its economy, with a major decline

in the manufacturing sector and a steady increase from the early 1990‟s in business services

jobs, as indicated on the graph below, and this is alongside an increase in other service

industry jobs in hotels, restaurants and retail (GLA Economics, 2004).

Figure 2 – Total Jobs in LBL by Sector (Manufacturing and Business Services) 1971-

20046

1.15 While structural economic changes mean manufacturing is no longer a major contributor to

job creation in the borough, other sectors have grown. There is now a strong recognition of

the importance of creative industries to the Borough‟s economy, which tend to be clustered in

parts of Deptford, New Cross and Forest Hill due to business advantages of good public

transport links and a good representation in a number of growing sectors.

1.16 LBL‟s economy currently, however, relative to London, has a small proportion of knowledge

based jobs, (LBL LDF Core Strategy). Overall, LBL identify that generally there is a greater

employment in the public sector, education and retail.


8

1.17 The New Cross ward currently has around 5,800 jobs, representing just under 10% of all jobs

in the Borough. The workforce structure of the New Cross ward includes significant public

administration, education and health jobs (accounting for 27% of all jobs in the ward) and

distribution, hotel and restaurant jobs (accounting for 23% of all jobs in the ward) (Annual

Business Inquiry, 2008).

1.18 These sectors are also LBL‟s largest employment sectors, accounting for 39% and 22% of the

Borough‟s total employment respectively. In comparison, London‟s largest sectors are

banking, finance and insurance (34.7%), followed by public administration, education and

health (22.2%) (Annual Business Inquiry, 2008).

1.19 Additionally, New Cross ward is also relatively strong in transport and communications jobs

compared to the LBL average, with construction, manufacturing and other services also well-

represented here in terms of locational quotients compared to the average for LBL. New

Cross ward also contains three times the London average for construction jobs (Annual

Business Inquiry, 2008).

1.20 Based on analysis of commuting patterns for residents of North Lewisham (Evelyn and New

Cross wards) from 2001 Census data, currently there is a relatively low self-containment rate

of 28% (residents who also work within the Borough). This is likely to be caused by the

position of the wards close to Borough boundaries of LBS and London Borough of Greenwich,

and the prevalence of good transport links to employment opportunities in central London.

However, self-containment rates vary significantly for occupational skill levels, with employees

in „Personal Service‟ and „Sales and Customer Service‟ occupations showing self-

containment levels of 45% and 31% respectively. Lower skilled occupations tend to have a

lower commuting distance and therefore more local workforce:


9

Figure 3 – Level of Self-Containment of North Lewisham Residents by Standard

Occupational Classification (Census, 2001)

1.21 Analysis has been undertaken into the 2001 Census travel-to-work patterns of both residents

and employees of the New Cross ward indicating that there is currently significant out-

commuting of residents, mainly to Inner London boroughs. As noted, only 28% of working

age, employed residents of New Cross ward work in LBL, and 16% work locally in New Cross

ward, with 72% commuting out of the Borough. Out-commuting is more prevalent in residents

with higher skilled occupations (41% of out-commuters are „higher-skilled‟ compared to 33%

of those who stay in New Cross ward for work and 32% who work in LBL).

1.22 In terms of the workforce of the New Cross ward, 42% live in LBL and 20% live in New Cross

ward, with 58% commuting into the Borough to work at New Cross ward. Of people who work

in New Cross ward, 46% of in-commuters are employed in higher skilled occupations,

compared to 33% of those who also live in New Cross ward (Census, 2001).

1.23 Specifically looking at the existing workforce at Surrey Canal, which is largely made up of light

industrial uses, commuting patterns show that the workforce is widely spread:


10

Figure 4 – Residential Origin of Existing Surrey Canal Employees (Closest Fit Output

Area) (Census, 2001)

1.24 Data from the Census (2001) indicates that economic activity in New Cross ward was 66.7%,

compared to 68.9% in LBL and 67.6% in London. This data also indicates that the proportion

of economically inactive residents who are retired is far lower (15%) in New Cross Ward

compared to LBL (28.0%) and London (30.2%), and the proportion of students (both

economically active and inactive) is higher, reflecting the younger population profile. More

up-to-date data from the Annual Population Survey (October 2008 – September 2009) shows

that economic activity rates for LBL at 78.1% are higher than the London average of 74.6%

(this is unavailable at ward-level).

1.25 Unemployment and worklessness are problems at the local level. According to Job-Seekers

Allowance (JSA) data7, the New Cross ward has a JSA claimant rate of 6.1%, or 732

claimants, compared to 4.8% of the population of LBL and 4.0% for London. DWP (2009)

data also indicates that around 16.3% of residents are claiming out-of-work benefits,

compared to a Borough-wide average of 15.5% and a London-wide figure of 13%.

1.26 In the future, jobs in LBL are forecast to grow by around 17,000 between 2000-2026, the bulk

of which would be accounted for by the business class sectors (e.g. retail) and office

employment, with industrial and warehousing employment change insignificant by

comparison. Office jobs are forecast to grow by 52% compared to a regional average of 41%,

while industrial jobs fall 5%, which is below the London average of 8%8.


11

Poor Health Indicators

1.27 NHS Lewisham and LBL‟s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)9 notes that the Borough

currently faces some significant health and well-being challenges. These include high rates of

smoking and high teenage conception rates. It further highlights that the North Lewisham area

is in the lowest 20% of areas nationally for deprivation and life expectancy, and highest 20%

for premature deaths from cancer and cardiovascular disease. This highlights that as LBL‟s

population grows in size and diversity, its needs will change and services and support will

need to adapt in order to minimise potential inequalities.

1.28 Health deprivation is prevalent in the surrounding area, with several pockets identified within

the 20% and 10% most deprived areas in the UK in terms of the „health‟ domain of the Indices

of Multiple Deprivation (2007)10

, which includes incidences of hospital admission and years of

life lost among other indicators:

Figure 5 – Health Deprivation in the Surrey Canal Area (Government’s Indices of

Multiple Deprivation, 2007)

1.29 The JSNA highlights that significant health inequalities can be found between wards within

the Borough, highlighting that New Cross and Evelyn wards frequently appear at the top of

the list for deprivation, mortality rates and life expectancy. In addition to geographic

inequalities, there are also population groups that experience poorer outcomes than others.


12

1.30 New Cross ward in particular is significantly deprived in terms of IMD health indicator, and

subsequently experiences severe health inequalities when compared to the wider area and

London.

1.31 In terms of PCT11

health indicator statistics, the New Cross ward has among the lowest life

expectancy in London, at 71.9 years for men and 77.1 years for women, compared to the

London averages of 77.1 years and 81.7 years respectively. Additionally, Standard Mortality

Ratios (SMRs) for the ward (all causes, aged under 75) monitored in the period 2002-07 were

159.5, compared to the average for LBL at 117.9, indicating a higher than expected death

rate – the second highest in the Borough. This trend is reflected in the SMR by different

causes, with New Cross ward showing a significantly higher SMR than the Borough average

for cancer (173.1 compared to 113.9), cardio-vascular diseases (137.6 compared to 128.0)

and coronary heart disease (127.7 compared to 125.4).

1.32 LBL has a teenage pregnancy rate of 69 per 1,000 female population aged 15-18, compared

to a London average of 45 per 1,000, and also has a prevalence of low birth weight, which is

a risk factor for infant mortality. In the New Cross ward, 9.7% of births were recorded to have

a „low birth weight‟ (under 2,500g) compared to the LBL average of 7.8% and London

average of 8%. At present, NHS Lewisham report that life expectancy at birth for New Cross

is 4.5 years less than LBL average and 6 years below the national (England) average.

1.33 Around 12% of children in LBL are identified as „obese‟ (have a BMI p-score of over 0.95)

compared to around 11% in London and a national average of just under 10%. In terms of

physical activity, survey data indicates that 45% of children in LBL in State maintained

schools participated in at least three hours of PE/sport per week, compared to 49% in London

and 50% in England. Lifestyle issues are a major concern, with high estimated levels of

smoking, substance misuse, and lower participation rates in physical activity in Evelyn and

New Cross wards compared with the average for LBL.

1.34 In terms of self-reported health, the ward level standardised ratio for people reporting Limiting

Long-Term Illness (LLTI) in New Cross ward is 123.6 for people under 75 (A standardised

percentage higher than 100 indicates that the ward has above average levels of LLTI, lower

than 100 indicates below average levels of LLTI). The standardised ratio for people under 75

reporting good health in New Cross ward is 90.9, indicating a poorer than average perception

of health in the local area.

1.35 Recent feedback from GPs collected by NHS Lewisham (Heath Needs Report, 2010)

indicates that areas of major concern include:

Chronic diseases - high rates and numbers of patients with diabetes, hypertension,

coronary heart disease;


13

Mental health - including children and teenagers related to domestic violence and

abuse; and

Childhood obesity, with the need for better services, involving diet and exercise for the

whole family.

Local Physical Environment

1.36 The Application Site itself includes several industrial / business estates, alongside the Millwall

Football Club Stadium, and the Lions Centre. A number of the buildings on-site are small

business / low-bay and small industrial units in varying degrees of operation and vacancy.

The local area has lacked investment in streetscape, and as such is of poor aesthetic quality.

1.37 There are currently five main access routes into the Site, providing vehicular, cycle and

pedestrian access from Bolina Road, Surrey Canal Road, Zampa Road, Rollins Street and

Stockholm Road. However, these access points suffer from a poor image and safety

concerns, and are unattractive to pedestrians and cyclists as highlighted in figure 6.

1.38 As noted, the Site is mainly occupied by light industrial floorspace, including 19 units within

the Excelsior Works industrial estate which also contains live/work space. The Enterprise

Industrial Estate is formed of 42 units including a mix of B class uses, two church facilities and

a café. The land to the south west of Surrey Canal Road comprises run down warehouse

buildings and a Builders Merchant. The existing Orion Industrial Estate is formed of

approximately 25 units. Units 5-10 are being demolished as part of works being undertaken

by Transport for London, and the remaining units are operating under a mix of B class uses.

The Lions Centre comprises 4,120 sq m of floorspace and the Stadium currently provides

11,900 sq m of floorspace.


14

Figure 6 – Existing Physical Environment at and around Surrey Canal

1.39 Overall the Site is currently very unattractive to access on foot, and difficult to navigate

through, with low quality public realm and poorly legible routes. The built environment varies

but is disjointed and makes poor use of the Site, with low density development and a

substantial amount of low grade uses including surface parking.

1.40 It is fragmented and degraded, currently acting locally as a barrier, creating severance in the

area rather than linking in a focus of activity as would normally be expected of such an

accessible site adjacent to the station and so close to central London.

1.41 As part of the Local Development Framework Evidence Base, LBL undertook a Borough-wide

Character Study12

, which concluded that “there is a general gradient of development from

oldest in the north to more modern in the south. As London has grown, the borough has since

successive rounds of urbanisation moving south across the borough”. It recognises that the

development of railways created isolated cells of development with poor links to the


15

surrounding areas, as seen in neighbourhoods such as New Cross and Deptford. In addition,

it highlights that redevelopment and new development can offer opportunities to enhance the

visual amenity and green infrastructure in local areas and these should be maximised.

1.42 Technical Appendix 11.2 to the Socio-Economic chapter of the Environmental Statement is a

report on industrial unit availability completed in 2010. This shows the availability of B1, B2

and B8 accommodation within the SE16, SE15, SE14 and SE8 postcodes adjoining the site.

The results of this survey show that at the date of this report the current availability of space

within these areas stands at 35,974 sqm. The existing B1, B2, B8 area on the Surrey Canal

Site equates to 22,155 sqm which includes Guild House on Rollins Street that will be retained

within the masterplan, and in addition the B1 uses within the Site will re-provide 10,000-

15,000sqm.

The Policy Context

NATIONAL POLICY

1.43 In recent years Government regeneration policy has become focussed increasingly on the

underlying economic causes of deprivation, and there has been a realisation that unless local

communities are able to access employment and business opportunities attempts to address

the wider manifestations of deprivation will have limited success.

1.44 The Coalition Government‟s policies on planning, urban development and regeneration are

set out in broad terms in the Coalition Agreement13

. Although policy under the newly formed

Government is still emerging, several key themes have been outlined that will be of

significance to the future of urban regeneration and sustainable community development,

including:

Localism, giving increased freedom for local authorities and partners to define their own

visions and priorities for their areas, alongside changes to financial arrangements to

allow them to benefit from development, and new mechanisms to invest in infrastructure

to support development

Re-balancing the economy to achieve growth in underperforming areas;

Encouraging enterprise in areas dependent on public sector employment and therefore

vulnerable to public sector cuts;

Reforming welfare to encourage employment and, in the longer term, the introduction of

a universal credit to simplify the benefit system and improve work incentives; and

Enabling communities and residents to help themselves and each other.


16

1.45 The Department for Communities and Local Government‟s Business Plan14

identifies the key

actions that the Government will take to achieve this and the timetable for when they will

happen. The Localism Bill, published in December 2010 will be followed by a National

Planning Framework by April 2012.

LONDON POLICY

1.46 The London Plan is the spatial development strategy for Greater London, and sets out an

integrated social, economic and environmental framework for the future development of

London to 2026. Alongside this, the Mayor‟s Economic Development and Housing Strategies

encompass the main areas of regeneration and sustainable community development policy

for London,

The London Plan (2008)15

and Consultation Replacement Draft Plan (2009)16

1.47 The Plan seeks to promote mixed use development maximising the potential of previously

developed sites. It supports the provision of high quality publicly accessible open space and

play space, appropriate community provision and the encouragement of the tourism and

leisure sectors. It also promotes the creation of local employment in developments and the

promotion of skills training and other initiatives to enable this.

1.48 LBL is within the South East London Sub-Region, which has been set an allocation of

accommodating 54,450 new homes between 2007/08 and 2016/17, which is equivalent to

5,445 units per year. The LBL‟s contribution to that overall sub-region target is 9,750 between

2007/08 and 2016/17 (equal to 975 units per year).

1.49 Housing provision remains a priority for the Consultation Draft Replacement Plan. Policy 3.3

sets a target for housing provision for the capital of approximately 33,400 new homes per year

between 2011 and 2021. Of this annual target, the LBL is expected to contribute a total of

1,105 homes. As well as policies setting out the number of new homes required for London,

the Plan also sets out policies that require new homes to: be well-designed and built to high

quality (Policy 3.5); provide a range of housing choice (Policy 3.8); and provide for mixed and

balanced communities (Policy 3.10).

1.50 Significantly, the Plan Policies 3.17 to 3.20 state that the Mayor will support the provision of

infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing and changing population. Policy 3.20 relates to

sports facilities and states that „development proposals that increase or enhance the provision

of sports and recreational facilities will be supported‟.

1.51 In terms of employment, the London Plan expects that the total number of jobs in London

could increase from 4.68 million in 2007 to 5.45 million by 2031. Jobs in „other services‟

(leisure and personal services) are projected to grow by 360,000 (about a third of projected

new jobs) and those in hotels and restaurants are set to grow by 235,000 (about a fifth of new


17

jobs). Other sectors where growth might be expected include health and education, which

could see around 54,000 more jobs and retail (36,000 new jobs). Policy 4.5 – London‟s Visitor

Infrastructure promotes supporting London‟s visitor economy and stimulating its growth. It

also seeks to achieve ‟40,000 net additional hotel bedrooms by 2031‟.

1.52 The London Plan identifies at Policy 2A.5 a series of Opportunity Areas throughout the

Greater London area. Lewisham-Catford-New Cross, within the LBL, is identified as one such

Opportunity Area with the policy seeking to achieve the following:

“Seek to exceed the minimum guidelines for housing having regard to indicative

estimates of employment capacity set out in the sub-regional tables;

Maximise access by public transport;

Promote social and economic inclusion and relate development to the

surrounding areas, especially any nearby Areas for Regeneration;

Take account of the community, environmental and other distinctive local

characteristics of each area;

Deliver good design, including public realm, open space and, where

appropriate, tall buildings, and

Co-ordinate development that crosses Borough boundaries where appropriate”.

Economic Development

1.53 A central element of the Mayor‟s Economic Development Strategy17

is maintaining London‟s

economic growth, while decreasing social polarisation, providing quality urban environments

and increasing opportunities for businesses. The Strategy sets out a number of objectives

including to:

Tackle barriers to employment;

Reduce disparities in labour market outcomes between groups;

Address the impacts of concentrations of disadvantage; and

Address barriers to enterprise start-up, growth and competitiveness.

1.54 The Draft Consultation Replacement Economic Development Strategy18

expands on these

themes, highlighting the importance of ensuring opportunities extend to all Londoners the

Strategy sets out three aims including: tackling worklessness; addressing the root causes of

low skills; and promoting equality and tackling deprivation.

Housing Development


18

1.55 The vision of the London Housing Strategy19

is to: “promote opportunity and a real choice of

home for all Londoners, in a range of tenures that meets their needs at a price they can

afford”. It highlights the need to provide more homes to meet the demands of projected

population and household number growth in the coming years. The overarching policies set

out in this document include:

Policy 1.1A which abolishes the previous Mayors 50% affordable housing

target. Instead, it adopts a new regional planning target for an average net supply of at

least 13,200 new affordable homes each year in London;

Policy 1.1C which promotes more family-sized homes, particularly affordable

homes, and aims for 42% of social rented housing, and by 2011, 16% of intermediate

homes having three bedrooms or more; and

Policy 1.1D which seeks new housing developments to contain an appropriate

mix of market, intermediate and social rented homes.

1.56 The Strategy promotes better housing quality and design across all tenures.

LOCAL (LBL) POLICY

1.57 At the local level, the LBL has published and adopted a suite of policy documents based on

the central aim of reducing social inequalities, regenerating deprived areas and promoting

sustainable communities. These build on and extend the objectives and aspirations of the

adopted Unitary Development Plan (2004)20

,

1.58 LBL‟s LDF Core Strategy has outlined a number of Drivers of Change, which set out the most

significant issues expected to impact on the borough up to 2026, including:

Housing Provision - The need to ensure provision of affordable housing is reflected

through increasing house prices and low household incomes when compared to the London

average. The opportunity to provide new housing in a highly developed borough is limited, so

reviewing opportunities to better use underused employment areas and town centres as housing

locations is necessary. This can protect established residential neighbourhoods, particularly

conservation areas. The need to provide sustainably designed new housing and ensure existing

homes improve energy efficiency is crucial to address climate change issues and improve living

conditions.

Growing the Local Economy - Growing the relatively small borough economy is a

priority of the Council and is essential to the creation of a sustainable community. A key priority

is the need to provide and strengthen local employment opportunities and enhance employment

prospects by improving local training opportunities, and accessibility to jobs within and beyond

the sub-region. To contribute to economic growth and address deprivation issues, the Council

will need to continue to facilitate the strong growth in the number of small businesses, support


19

creative industries, focus on the economic potential of town centres, local shopping areas and

small parades (including street and farmers' markets), and better use underused employment

areas. Identified growth areas include a range of diverse business services, and the creative and

food industries.

Building a Sustainable Community - The benefits of new development need to be

maximised for all in the community and will be central to addressing and reducing issues related

to deprivation in order to improve education, employment and training opportunities, and reduce

health inequalities. New development can contribute to both the provision and enhancement of

existing services and facilities, where demand for them arises from the new populations. There

is also a role to play in creating a sense of place and community through the high quality design

of buildings and spaces that are safe and contribute to a healthy environment.

1.59 LBL‟s Regeneration Strategy21

defines six priority outcomes for LBL, to be achieved by 2020,

covering the LBL Strategic Partnership‟s ambitions also outlined in the Sustainable

Community Strategy22

to build and support communities that are:

Ambitious and achieving – where people are inspired and supported to fulfil

their potential.

Safer – where people feel safe and live free from crime, antisocial behaviour

and abuse.

Empowered and responsible – where people are actively involved in their local

area and contribute to supportive communities.

Clean, green and liveable – where people live in high quality housing and can

care for and enjoy their environment.

Healthy, active and enjoyable – where people can actively participate in

maintaining and improving their health and well-being.

Dynamic and prosperous – where people are part of vibrant communities and

town centres, well connected to London and beyond.

1.60 There are two cross-cutting principles which underpin these six desired outcomes:

Reducing inequality – narrowing the gaps in outcomes for citizens; and

Delivering together, efficiently, effectively and equitably – ensuring that all

citizens have appropriate access to and choice of local services.

1.61 The three key themes of the Regeneration Strategy are People, Prosperity and Place. These

are sub-categorised to identify the following key objectives:


20

People: Healthy, young, creative, diverse and cohesive communities;

Prosperity: Business enterprise and jobs growth, education and skills, and

creative growth;

Place: An evolving, liveable, protected and managed environment that is safe

and accessible.

1.62 These policy directions are also promoted and extended in the LBL Social Inclusion

Strategy23

, which outlines a central vision to make LBL the best place in London to live, work

and learn, by ensuring that the barriers that prevent people from participating in social,

cultural, community and economic activities are removed and that the effects of poverty and

exclusion are balanced by properly targeted, quality services. Regenerating neighbourhoods

is established as a key priority, alongside improving access to quality housing, improving well-

being, life chances and educational standards, and improving skills and access to

employment.

1.63 The Council aims to implement the above aspirations in securing sustainable provision of

appropriate accommodation through the LBL Housing Strategy24

, and economic growth

through the Economic Development Business Plan25

.

1.64 In addition, LBL‟s Physical Activity, Sport and Leisure Strategy26

outlines an aim to bring

together the aims and aspirations of the Council, PCT, sports clubs, schools and other

organisations in terms of the adequate provision of facilities in the borough based on three

key aims:

To increase participation in physical activity and sport;

To enable the LBL community to develop its potential in sport; and

To develop an appropriate infrastructure of facilities.

1.65 The central vision of this Strategy is to “create life changes through an active and healthy

Lewisham”. In terms of infrastructure, the central aim encompasses a number of objectives

related to the provision of facilities or delivery frameworks, and sets out a role for service

providers.


21

Part 2: Regeneration Drivers

The previous section outlined the current social and demographic characteristics contributing to

deprivation and economic, physical and social problems faced in North Lewisham and the Surrey

Canal area, and the relevant strategies aimed at redressing inequalities through regeneration.

This section looks at this regionally significant regeneration priority area, and highlights the factors

that can help to catalyse economic growth, community cohesion and physical infrastructure

improvements to meet the specific needs of local residents in North Lewisham.

The Need for Regeneration

2.1 At present, the Surrey Canal is under-developed and not reaching its full potential, with jobs in

locally and regionally declining sectors and facing economic decline, physical environmental

deterioration and low accessibility / permeability for visitors and residents. It generally has a

poor image, although has significant potential to be a vibrant and vital sustainable community,

building on good links to central London, the existing draw of Millwall Football Club Stadium,

and providing a catalyst to wider regeneration and the basis for the provision of new

infrastructure.

2.2 The success of regeneration in other areas close by shows what can be achieved, including

investment in London Bridge, Bermondsey and Canada Water, as well as major development

on the other side of the river in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

2.3 As referred to previously, LBL‟s LDF Core Strategy recognises that the key drivers for change

in the area will be through:

The provision of new housing to tackle affordability issues

Growth of the local economy to address current problems of unemployment

and economic activity and low levels of investment

Building a sustainable community, addressing the current low skills base and

high levels of multiple deprivation and health inequalities.

2.4 Regeneration in North Lewisham can be driven by policy and development-led approaches,

including environmental and infrastructural changes that can help to get people into work by

providing good opportunities for local residents to upgrade their skills base. At present, the

resident population of the area has a lower skills base and level of qualification attainment

than average in London – by providing new introductions to work both in construction and

operation, a development at Surrey Canal can help to give people new opportunities with

entry-level positions and redress long-term unemployment and economic inactivity.


22

2.5 In particular, regeneration measures that engage disaffected groups and reduce inequalities

in opportunities can be delivered by providing new, affordable homes to live in; entry level

jobs in a range of sectors including entrepreneurial activities and those with linked training;

improvements in sport, leisure and community facilities such as health and education

services; and through the general uplift in the quality of publicly accessible open space and

accessibility.

2.6 The Proposed Development at Surrey Canal needs to kick-start a process of regeneration at

the north-west of the borough, and a number of key elements are required to harness the

potential of the area, including:

The creation of new jobs and business by securing private sector investment in

growing sectors that provide local residents with entrepreneurial opportunities, and

contributing to a new growth hub for North Lewisham;

Connecting with the wider economy in central London through attracting new

visitors and residents to the area and retaining their spending in local businesses and

services;

Ensuring local residents have employment and training packages tailored to

address their specific needs, and that educational results in the area continue to

improve, so that residents can take advantage of additional jobs locally and compete for

higher skilled jobs in the wider London labour market;

Major physical improvements, including good quality street scene and new

buildings to establish this as an area people want to live or work in or visit;

Providing the scale and critical mass of development to change perceptions of

the area; and

Providing opportunities to lead healthy lifestyles and giving access to

community facilities in an active environment.

2.7 It is important to be realistic about the types of investment which might be attracted to the

area and its sustainability. Employment projections produced by the GLA (2006)27

show that it

is likely that employment growth in London, when it returns, will continue to be driven by

service sector employment including retail, hotels and distribution (the only sector predicted to

show growth in the short term), health, education and business and other services (which

includes sport and leisure). By contrast manufacturing, utilities and transport will continue to

decline significantly. Because of its current employment structure a trend based analysis

would suggest that LBL is likely to capture little of this growth without a significant change in

direction.

2.8 Because they are growth sectors culture, sports, arts and tourism are particularly beneficial to

restructuring industrial areas that are seeking to diversify their economic bases. The wider


23

environmental benefits (new facilities, creative use of redundant space and buildings and

improved infrastructure) and image change (lively, animated and cosmopolitan ambience) can

positively alter outsiders negative mental maps of post-industrial areas and help re-position

them as more attractive places for inward investment.

2.9 Development will also need to address crime and anti-social behaviour, both by creating a

high quality, active and secure environment and also providing opportunities for engagement

through sport or other initiatives. Employment is also one of the most important factors in

tackling the underlying causes of crime, particularly with young people.

2.10 A successful regeneration will need to be supported by public services, community and

voluntary groups, and can enable this by providing a forum for these to operate, whether that

be in conjunction with health space, sports facilities or in a place of worship.

Key Strengths of Surrey Canal

2.11 Despite the problems faced in this area, North Lewisham has strengths on which to build and

the Council has been working with partners over a number of years to develop and implement

proposals to support the regeneration of the Borough. Key strengths include:

A young population with improving educational attainment, and a large labour

force with a mix of skill levels, including highly qualified and skilled residents;

Competitive strengths in some key growth clusters for the London economy,

including sports and leisure, in part due to the presence of Millwall Football Club

Stadium and the Lions Community Scheme.

The transport accessibility of the Site, with station links to the north (South

Bermondsey Rail connecting into London Bridge in only 4 minutes) and south, and the

forthcoming East London Line service from the planned new station at Surrey Canal

Road;

The strategic location of the Borough as part of a very prosperous regional

economy, with good transport links to central London;

2.12 This has resulted in major recent investments in the north of the Borough and in neighbouring

areas of North Southwark and Greenwich, which cumulatively can help to raise the regional

profile of the area as a hub for commercial activity and economic and social resurgence.

2.13 LBL‟s aspirations for the north of the borough, including New Cross, include the desire to

“address deprivation issues in order to improve education standards, general health and well-

being, and local employment and training, through improvements to the physical and

economic environment” (LDF Core Strategy). The Surrey Canal regeneration can help the

area to meet these aspirations by dealing with the current disadvantages and enhancing the


24

strengths, building on the potential for community-led regeneration and creating a long-term

benefit in terms of providing jobs, homes, community facilities and a vastly improved public

realm.


25

Part 3: The Strategy for the Site

The baseline assessment of the demographic, economic and physical environment show that the

Surrey Canal area is a regionally significant regeneration priority, and can play an important role in

the wider renewal of North Lewisham.

Based on the principles of the „Regeneration Drivers‟, this section identifies the key elements of the

Proposed Development that can help to foster positive regeneration outcomes for residents,

employees and visitors in North Lewisham and address the underlying problems of deprivation and

inequality.

It outlines specifically how the Proposed Development is a new opportunity to create critical mass to

change perceptions of the area for residents, visitors, employees and employers. In particular, the

„sporting village‟ aspect of the scheme has the potential to deliver key economic, social and

community benefits, alongside the provision of new homes, community resources and jobs in growing

sectors.

A Comprehensive Mixed-use Development

3.1 The Proposed Development will transform the current landscape from light industrial units in a

low-density, run-down area with low permeability, into a mixed-use, highly accessible

environment providing homes, workplaces and community facilities in an active and

accessible street environment. The scheme includes elements of residential, commercial and

a significant provision of sports, leisure and recreation floorspace along with community

facilities including healthcare and assembly/community space, in a modern, well-designed

pedestrian environment with publicly accessible open space and play facilities.

3.2 In order to help to address physical deprivation and the needs of a community currently

suffering social and particularly health inequalities, the Proposed Development will be a

mixed-use scheme driven by a „sporting village‟ base, and will include up to 2,500 residential

units.

3.3 The following quantum of residential, commercial, community and leisure floorspace will make

up the Proposed Development:

A1/A2 Retail: up to 3,600m²;

A3/A4 Cafes, Restaurants and Drinking Establishments: up to 3,500m²;

A5 Hot Food Takeaways: up to 300m²;

B1 Business: 10,000m² - 15,000m²;

C1 Hotels: up to 15,000m² (150 rooms);

C3 Residential: 150,000m² - 200,000m² (up to 2,500 units);


26

D1 Community: 400m² - 10,000m²; and

D2 Leisure and Entertainment: 4,120m² - 15,800m².

3.4 The vision for Surrey Canal is based on regenerating an old and decaying industrial area,

creating a new sustainable community that is a destination in its own right. The Proposed

Development aims to develop a unique identity, building on existing strengths which include

its young, creative, multicultural community, its location and its established sporting heritage.

The vision is to enhance these through providing new jobs and homes and community

facilities, creating vibrant publicly accessible open spaces, and address issues of severance

and inaccessibility.

3.5 The Vision identifies that sport should be the main driver to promote healthy lifestyles in th

community, provide employment and encourage social inclusion, which, alongside a range of

other community facilities expected to include a multifaith centre and healthcare element will

aid in the development of a sustainable community.

The Proposed Development and the Masterplan in Context

3.6 The comprehensive regeneration of the Application Site is part of a strategic arc of

regeneration projects across North Lewisham and Southwark, including other landmark

developments such as Convoy‟s Wharf and Canada Water, which will bring new life to an

area highlighted as needing the economic, social and physical effect of regeneration

3.7 A key aim is to reconnect the area, building on excellent rail connections to central London,

and through opening up an accessible walking and cycling route through the Site from South

Bermondsey Station to Surrey Canal Station, including an overhaul of Bolina Road and the

underpasses, a new „Stadium Avenue‟ and „Station Square‟, eventually leading through to

refurbishment and opening-up of Bridgehouse Meadows.

3.8 The Proposed Development will provide a range of floorspace uses, including regionally-

significant indoor sports provision, with a comprehensive sports and physical activity offer.

This will extend to include a health facility that can incorporate day-to-day community

healthcare facilities alongside sports-related functions such as sports medicine and

physiotherapy.

3.9 Alongside this, aside from the significant residential element, the Proposed Development will

offer commercial space suitable for start-up businesses, and a creative industries incubation

centre.

3.10 There will also be improvements to the physical appearance of the Millwall Football Club

Stadium. Within the Proposed Development there will be opportunities to incorporate hotel


27

and conferencing facilities, an area for assembly / community use and significant

improvements to publicly accessible open space and the street scene.

Providing a Step Change in the Local Economy

3.11 The area, at present, has a mix of low-density light industrial floorspace, mostly occupied by

small, independent firms in construction, logistics and manufacturing firms. Analysis indicates

that employment locally is concentrated in these lower-skilled occupations, alongside public

sector occupations, both of which are set to decline.

3.12 LBL‟s LDF Core Strategy highlights the opportunity for the borough to capitalise on the long

term growth of London's economy, including expansion in service industries, culture, leisure

and education.

3.13 At Surrey Canal, in a nationally-recognised area of acute employment and income deprivation

and where the skills base is low and the unemployment rate is high, the transformation from

low grade, low intensity uses to a more intensive, mixed-sector employment offer is a

significant benefit. The intensified use of a currently under-used site can help to facilitate the

borough‟s diversification away from traditional manufacturing and industrial sectors towards

business services and other service industries and creative sectors that will help LBL‟s

economy to stabilise and grow.

Local Jobs in a Range of Skills and Sectors

3.14 The direct impact of employment provision, both through construction and operation of the

Proposed Development, will provide a real tangible benefit to local residents.

3.15 In the first instance the Proposed Development will create significant construction

employment, with an estimated 700 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs being provided over the

course of the 15 year construction period.

3.16 The benefits of a large construction project such as this can be enhanced by tapping into jobs

brokerage schemes for local unemployed people, and by fostering links with local education

institutions to give people the opportunity to learn important skills while being offered the

chance to earn money close to where they live. Renewal have consulted with the New Cross-

based 170 Community Project who run training and access to employment courses for the

local community about ways in which the scheme can enable local residents to access the job

opportunities at Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village.

3.17 Once the Proposed Development is operational, new jobs will be created across a range of

office, retail and service-based floorspace within Surrey Canal. These too can be supported

by training and jobs brokerage services (such as the 170 Community Project) to ensure that

local people benefit can from these opportunities. Overall the Environmental Statement (see

Socio Economic Environmental Statement Chapter 11, and corresponding Technical


28

Appendix 11.1) forecasts 2,000 jobs in the newly created floorspace at Surrey Canal scheme

if maximum employment floorspace parameters are built out; or around 930 based on

minimum employment floorspace parameters. This compares to maximum potential

employment from the Site now of around 400.

3.18 Start-up units for local businesses and a mix of sports, recreation, leisure and community

uses will create active street environments – creating a fully inclusive urban environment. The

provision of flexible office and workshop space will help to foster entrepreneurial activity and

the growth of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), giving the opportunity for local

people to start up businesses. This kind of space is often occupied by creative and cultural

industries - sectors that are already strong locally partly due to the nearby Arts department at

Goldsmiths College.

3.19 The retail element of the Proposed Development will be designed to maximise the potential

for active frontages at ground-floor level to create an active, safe and attractive street

environment at key frontages of Station Square, Stadium Avenue, Stockholm Road and

Bolina Gardens.

3.20 A significant proportion of the jobs at Surrey Canal will be accommodated by the retail, hotel

and leisure floorspace on-site. These types of jobs can be expected to benefit existing

communities in the local area in particular. An analysis of 2001 Census data indicated that in

London, approximately 30% of all employees live within 5km of their workplace, whereas in

wholesale, retail, hotel and restaurant sectors, more than 40% of people live this close to their

place of employment. In addition, these sectors typically offer a range of flexible entry-level

opportunities that are particularly accessible to those just entering or returning to the labour

market.

3.21 Overall, the Proposed Development is estimated to provide a net uplift in employment of

around 1,500 potential FTE workspaces in a range of sectors and skill levels.

3.22 In addition to the direct impacts of the jobs expected to be accommodated within the

Proposed Development, there will also be spending impacts. The Environmental Statement

identifies spending effects of nearly £50m a year from the additional employees and residents

on the Site, while visitors to the new sports facilities will contribute considerably more.

A Visitor Destination

3.23 As well as offering positive opportunities for local residents in terms of employment, a key

factor in the success of Surrey Canal will be its ability to draw in visitors by providing high

quality community facilities, sports and recreation, and hotel/conferencing facilities within a

vibrant environment easily accessible from central London. At present, the Site is largely

impermeable and has little to draw in visitors other than on matchdays. The transformation of


29

the Site will radically alter this and can help to promote North Lewisham as an attractive

destination in London for business and leisure.

3.24 Increased visitors contributes to regeneration of the wider area in many ways. It directly

brings increased spending and it increases activity at the street level, reducing fear of crime.

Perhaps most importantly, the regionally important sports facilities being created as part of

the Sporting Village will introduce many people to the area, putting it on the map of London,

and improving it‟s credibility as a location for further investment.

Providing New Homes

3.25 Access to affordable, decent standard housing is essential for building sustainable

communities and reducing pressure on housing waiting lists, offering more opportunities for

vulnerable groups (e.g. elderly, young people, low-income households) to improve their

standard of living. Making provision for accessible, adaptable, well-designed and constructed

housing in a range of sizes and tenures therefore has the potential to help redress social

inequalities, and can help to tackle levels of housing deprivation in this area.

3.26 There are also related benefits by providing a new stock of homes in private tenures, by way

of addressing problems of overcrowding and meeting the aspirations for accommodating

growth and subsequent economic development, which will help to redress the current

problems of affordability of housing as a whole in LBL.

3.27 The provision of a suitable range of mixed tenures, sizes and types of accommodation at

Surrey Canal responds to policy objectives outlined in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing

(2010) to achieve a balance of affordability across the market that is attractive, safe and to a

high design quality. It also responds to the objectives set in the London Plan (2008) and

Consultation Draft Replacement London Plan (2009) particularly draft Policy 3.10, and the

London Housing Strategy (2010), which aims to promote successful, strong and mixed

communities and provide 50,000 affordable homes in London by 2012.

3.28 As such, the provision of around 2,500 new homes will aid affordability and offer significant

regeneration benefits by providing new units that respond to the requirements of the local

population and can help to create a sustainable community in the wider North Lewisham area.

3.29 Surrey Canal will contribute to the rebalancing of North Lewisham, and the creation of a more

sustainable community. Currently the area is dominated by a high proportion of social rented

housing. This new Proposed Development is more mixed and balanced, including all tenures.

3.30 Research into lettings data collected as part of the Core Dataset by the National Housing

Federation shows how new housing (including affordable housing), can increase economic

activity rates in a deprived area. The data shows that the majority of social rented housing in


30

LBL is let to existing residents of the borough, whereas intermediate affordable tenures are

around 60% more likely to attract people from further afield.

3.31 Therefore many of the residents in affordable homes are not new to the borough, but those

who are new to LBL are disproportionately in intermediate housing. Economic activity rates in

intermediate affordable housing are particularly high, including many key workers and other

low income working households.

3.32 As a result, even in affordable housing, the new residents brought to the area (as opposed to

those just relocated within the borough) can have average economic activity rates of up to

75%, well above those in North Lewisham now. Adding in the additional effect of substantial

numbers of private homes, the Proposed Development helps rebalance the area into a living

and working community.

Community Facilities, Sport and Recreation

3.33 The inclusion of public services and infrastructure is paramount as part of new developments

in order to build strong, sustainable and cohesive communities.

3.34 The D1 (Community) element of the Application Site, accounting for up to 10,000m², is

expected to include a multifaith centre in one plot, health related uses in another, and a

children‟s nursery/crèche of at least 400m² with private outdoor space of a minimum of 200m²

in a third plot.

3.35 These facilities together provide a comprehensive offer which could incorporate day-to-day

community healthcare facilities alongside sports medicine specialisms such as physiotherapy,

offering joint benefits and promoting Surrey Canal as a regionally significant hub for sport,

health and fitness, while offering local people, sports clubs and schools the opportunities to

take part in active recreation.

3.36 The D2 (Leisure and Entertainment) element of the scheme is a defining element of the

Proposed Development, and will accommodate large-span sporting centres. These will have

the potential to include the following facilities:

An indoor 6-lane cricket centre, (potentially involving Kent County Cricket who

have shown interest);

Basketball facilities which include a 3-court hall with a central show court with

seating for 1,000 spectators (supported by the Luol Deng Foundation and England

Basketball), which will be shared with a 3-court netball and a 12 court badminton facility;

Indoor football centre with two 5-a-side pitches which would re-house the

existing Millwall Community scheme;

A leisure centre with a gym, dance studios, swimming pool and day spa;


31

A new home facility for the Amateur Boxing Association of England, which

could include a boxing club and museum;

A gymnastics facility (potentially occupied by Ladywell Gymnastics Club);

A Table Tennis Facility with backing from the English Table Tennis Association;

and

A climbing wall;

3.37 All of these sports and leisure facilities will be based around clubs with some National

Governing Body involvement, and will also be accessible to local residents, clubs and

schools. The overall complex of facilities will be run as a not-for-profit organisation (Surrey

Canal Sporting Foundation) with a management company operating day-to-day operations

under the direction of a third-sector board.

3.38 This proposed community element of the scheme can have significant positive effects on

regeneration helping level-out social and in particular health inequalities currently prevalent in

the surrounding area.

A Revitalised Physical Environment

3.39 Providing the right setting for a mix of homes, community facilities and employment space is

critical to the success of a development, and therefore giving detailed thought to the urban

environment, publicly accessible open space and street design is fundamental in binding

together the individual elements of Surrey Canal.

3.40 The area is largely inaccessible and isolated, with poor permeability for pedestrians and

cyclists. The general physical unattractiveness, isolation and lack of draw for visitors are

currently a major barrier to community regeneration at this Site and the surrounding area.

3.41 As part of the holistic masterplan for the Proposed Development, a series of publicly

accessible open spaces are to be provided within Surrey Canal, with two main landscaped

areas totalling around 5,600-6,600m²:

An area of publicly accessible soft-landscaped open space known as Bolina

Gardens will be incorporated in the north-west of the Site, covering around 3,000-

4,000m².

Stadium Avenue, a hard-landscaped publicly accessible open space, will be

incorporated to the south of the existing stadium, covering around 2,600m².

3.42 In addition, the Proposed Development includes a commitment to provide off-site

improvements to environmental quality and facilities at Bridgehouse Meadows, to the south of

the Site.


32

3.43 Further to this, private communal open space will be provided throughout the Site on raised

courtyards for the use of residents, totalling over 13,000m².

3.44 There are currently five main access routes into the Site, providing vehicular, cycle and

pedestrian access from Bolina Road, Surrey Canal Road, Zampa Road, Rollins Street and

Stockholm Road. However these access points suffer from a poor image and safety

concerns, and are unattractive to pedestrians and cyclists.

3.45 As indicated by the following image, the series of linked publicly accessible open spaces will

greatly increase permeability and access for pedestrians and cyclists, providing a route

through the Site, opening up the transport links at South Bermondsey and Surrey Canal rail

stations. Starting at the north, there will be a public realm overhaul of the Bolina Road area to

make it more attractive to residents and visitors, with a route running through Bolina Gardens,

along Stadium Avenue and opening onto Stadium Square at the south, which is then within

easy reach of Bridgehouse Meadows.

Figure 7 – Surrey Canal ‘Green Armature’

3.46 Due to the current industrial nature of the Site, there is a poor environment for children to take

part in formal or informal play and recreation. Responding to the projected population

structure of the population living in the Proposed Development, a strategy for playable space

has been carefully designed to provide around 5,330 sqm of public or communal playable

space, including equipped provision at Bolina Gardens. On a plot-by-plot basis, all residential


33

areas can offer the playspace to satisfy the requirements of the GLA‟s SPG on Providing for

Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation, when incorporating the public

provision of a Local Playable Space at Bolina Gardens and using roof space where practical.

It is expected that older children (aged 12+) will be accommodated by playable space in

Bridgehouse Meadows. In addition, further space at podium level may be suitable for informal

meeting and gathering.

3.47 Altogether, the provision of the individual elements of the scheme will inter-link to create a

new urban area where people will want to live work and visit. Successful regeneration of this

currently underutilised, low-grade Site will stem from the combination of these elements - new

homes, jobs, community facilities and publicly accessible open space - responding to the

needs of the local population by tackling physical deprivation, providing opportunities for

employment and skills uplift, generating vitality and reducing social inequalities. By changing

perceptions of Surrey Canal, the Proposed Development can foster pride in the area, which

combined with the opportunities created for engagement and employment will also support

efforts to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.

Integrating with the Regeneration of Southwark

3.48 The Application Site is part of a transformation of North Lewisham, a flagship development

that will build momentum for the regeneration of other sites nearby. But it will also have

similar benefits in nearby parts of neighbouring Southwark.

3.49 As mentioned above there has been some very successful (and on-going) regeneration of the

northern parts of LBS, particularly riverside areas including Borough, London Bridge and

Bermondsey. These areas are close to Surrey Canal, but are currently perceived as very

different and separate. The transformation of the Application Site will make those connections

more apparent, making Surrey Canal very visibly a part of the area‟s transformation. This will

encourage and support further investment in the areas between the Site and the river to the

north, including deprived parts of Southwark, encouraging regeneration to spread in further

from the riverside areas.

3.50 Being close to the boundary between the two boroughs, many of the benefits of highlighted in

this report, including employment, community facilities and access to excellent new sporting

infrastructure, will be of equal benefit to deprived communities in Southwark, and will have

similar beneficial effects.

Securing Delivery

3.51 A crucial benefit of the Proposed Development is its deliverability. The project is led by a

specialist regeneration company with roots in the area and a wealth of experience behind it.

Renewal Group have secured ownership of a very large majority of the site, with the

remainder being mainly owned by LBL, which greatly reduces risks to successful delivery.


34

The team has been working on the project for years to get a detailed understanding of what is

needed, what will work, and how it can best be delivered. It is a well-prepared, well-

researched and well-planned proposal, which is poised to transform the area.


35

Part 4: Sport-led Regeneration

This section focuses on the key element of Surrey Canal – the implementation of a legacy for sport-

led regeneration. Through the provision of a broad range of sports, leisure and recreation, this

element can play a major role in urban regeneration with significant community benefits in terms of

health outcomes, social sustainability, and economic growth.

“London’s Sporting Village”

4.1 There are four identifiable key goals for London in terms of building a sport and physical

activity legacy:

Getting people more active;

Transforming the sporting infrastructure;

Building capacity and skills; and

Maximising the benefits of sport to our society.

4.2 Surrey Canal will contribute to all of these objectives. A significant feature of the Proposed

Development is the potential to generate positive social, economic and community effects

through the provision of a high-quality, regionally significant sport, leisure and recreation offer.

4.3 At the heart of the Proposed Development is a commitment to providing a broad range of

facilities that will enhance the area‟s reputation as a „sporting village‟, an environment to

foster the aspirations of elite athletes while also delivering crucial facilities for community use.

Need for Sport Facilities

4.4 Renewal commissioned a study into the needs and demans for sport at Surry Canal in 2009

(included as Appendix 2 to this report), highlighting that:

There is a clear need across the borough to increase levels of regular participation

and provide enhanced opportunities for volunteering, coaching and organised sport in

order to align Lewisham with the national average;

Participation is clearly an issue across the borough, which is linked to health and

deprivation indices;

There appears to be a clear issue in terms of the perception of quality and

satisfaction with the current sport and leisure infrastructure in the borough, which in turn

is likely to impact on participation and health issues;

It is evident that the priority in tackling health inequalities is a key driver across

Lewisham, and the role of sport as an important contributor to this agenda is


36

recognised. In turn, developing high quality sports facilities is an important part of he

equation.

Building Sustainable Communities

4.5 Sport England‟s Strategy for 2008-201128

outlines the potential for sport to be a foundation for

sustainable communities, providing opportunities for organised and informal activities and

events, courses and skills programmes, training, employment and volunteering. Community

benefits may include a reduction in anti-social behaviour, increased social inclusion and

interaction, employment opportunities, active lifestyles and increased attractiveness of

neighbourhoods as places to live, work and visit.

4.6 Currently, 4.7% of the adult population contribute at least one hour a week volunteering to

sport. A broad range of research has identified the positive benefits to individuals and

communities from engaging in volunteering. These include a greater sense of belonging and

identity with community, development of new social contacts and relationships and often the

opportunity to learn new skills and gain new qualifications.

4.7 In policy terms, Sport England suggest that the following targets can be realised through

sport-led regeneration:

Build more cohesive, empowered and active communities;

Address the disadvantage that individuals experience because of their gender,

race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief;

Increase long-term housing supply and affordability; and

Secure a healthy natural environment for today and in the future.

4.8 At Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village, the range and accessibility of sporting facilities

can help foster community links directly through encouraging volunteering or participation,

and also indirectly simply by promoting the benefits of a healthy lifestyle and encouraging

participation.

4.9 Critical to this element of the scheme, the existing Lions Community Centre will be re-housed

in new, purpose-built accommodation within the 5-a-side element of the sporting facilities on-

site. The Lions Community Centre is home to the Millwall Community Scheme, which has

been providing opportunities for the local communities of LBL and LBS to take part in sport,

learn new skills, make new friends, improve their health and find employment for over 20

years. The key activities currently undertaken by the Millwall Community Scheme include:

Delivering schools coaching sessions in a range of sports including football,

basketball, athletics, netball and rugby;


37

Running community clubs in a number of these sports;

Organising coaching activities on estates and at community venues;

Offering holiday soccer courses at different locations around LBL and LBS; and

Training people to become sports coaches and develop their communication skills.

4.10 As part of a multi-faceted, regionally significant sporting village, the Millwall Community

Scheme has an opportunity to enhance its already excellent community profile locally and can

potentially benefit from highly accessible and top quality facilities on its doorstep.

Promoting Healthy Lifestyles

4.11 The relationship between physical activity and health-related fitness benefits are widely

accepted, for example, the reduction of risk of coronary heart disease, obesity and

osteoporosis; psychological benefits (e.g. reduction of depression); and a range of other more

specific health benefits. The benefits to physical health to be obtained from physical activity

depend on the nature of the activity, the duration of participation and the level of intensity

sustained. It further depends on factors which providers have little ability to influence – the

frequency of participation and the length of adherence over time to the activity.

4.12 The links between physical activity and mental health benefits are less well-established than

those with physical health. Nevertheless, the strength of the associative evidence is

consistent enough to justify the conclusion that participation in physical activity contributes

positively to mental health.

4.13 Sport England‟s Shaping Places through Sport Strategy includes a central theme of improving

health and reducing health inequalities through sport, identifying the potential for accessibility

of sports facilities to contribute to environments that encourage healthy and active lifestyles.

Sport England identify that poor quality facilities are a limiting factor in participation, which is

already below the national average in the local area29

.

4.14 In common with many deprived communities there are a number of health issues locally that

are strongly correlated with poverty. These can relate to a range of lifestyle factors such as

diet, smoking and drinking, and also levels of physical activity. The availability of such a

comprehensive sports, leisure and healthcare provision can have a significant effect on

people‟s lives. Having such facilities within walking distance of home can greatly improve the

effectiveness of public health campaigns to increase levels of physical activity. It will

encourage participation, enhance the reputation of local sports clubs, and potentially provide

crucial links between local schools and institutions to share facilities.

Tackling Deprivation


38

4.15 The National Sport and Regeneration Conference (2009) outlined that increasing levels of

participation in appropriate sport and physical activity can contribute to improved health, lower

worklessness, less crime, increased skills, stronger community identity and community

cohesion. However sports facilities that meet local needs are not available in many deprived

neighbourhoods and most of the population do not participate. Encouraging people to

participate in sport and physical activity regularly and to lead more active lives takes time and

resources including good facilities.

4.16 Providing youth with positive alternatives for their leisure time can help to reduce the

likelihood of antisocial behaviour. Sport England argue that sports activities and competitions,

sports volunteering, sports leadership, sports training and sport employment schemes help

develop individuals and communities, encourage healthier and more productive lifestyles and

create inclusive communities and neighbourhoods that provide a shared identity and sense of

place.

4.17 There is wider evidence for the role that sport can contribute urban regeneration and social

inclusion from a study by the Centre for Leisure Research, commissioned by the Scottish

Office Development Department in collaboration with Sport Scotland30

. The research looked

at how sport can counter social exclusion, by increasing individuals‟ self-esteem, building

community spirit, increasing social interaction, improving health and fitness, creating

employment and reducing the temptation of anti-social behaviour by giving young people a

purposeful activity. This beneficial element of the Proposed Development can respond directly

to the relatively high levels of crime prevalent in New Cross ward, and can actively engage

the local community, which has a higher than average proportion of younger people.

4.18 As well as providing positive engagement for younger people, the provision of sports facilities

can help to redress significant variations in levels of participation in sport and physical activity

between different groups including older people, disabled people and BAME groups.

Participation levels in disadvantaged areas and by these sections of the community are lower

than the national average. A range of important barriers prevent people from being active.

These include personal attitude, beliefs and knowledge about sport and physical activity; time

availability; affordability, accessibility and environmental issues such as safety and the

standard of the venue or facility. The delivery of a range of good quality facilities as part of a

new, accessible urban landscape can therefore help to engage people in sport and

recreation.

4.19 The credibility of facilities delivered as part of the Proposed Development is greatly enhanced

by the range of local, regional and national organisations currently showing interest in the

various facilities, potentially including Sport England, the Luol Deng Foundation (basketball),

Kent County Cricket Club (cricket), the Amateur Boxing Association of England (boxing),

Ladywell Gymnastics Club (gymnastics), the English Table Tennis Association (table tennis)


39

and the Millwall Community scheme. These organisations have the cumulative potential to

raise the visibility of North Lewisham as a centre for sport in London and the UK.

4.20 Renewal were invited to apply for Iconic Facilities Funding by Sport England as part of their

People, Places, Play initiative. This application was submitted in December 2010, and stage

one applicants are due to be determined by March 2011.

Economic Effects

4.21 Sport and leisure is a recognised growth sector. A Report by Sport England/SIRC31

indicated

that 434,000 people were estimated to have been employed in sport-related activities in

England in 2005, around 1.8% of all employment in England. Sport generated £15.47 billion in

value-added in England in 2005, an increase of nearly 50% since 2000. Consumer

expenditure on sport in England increased from £11.81 billion in 2000 to £16.58 billion in

2005: an increase of 40%.

4.22 As well as providing direct jobs at the individual facilities, a range of opportunities from

voluntary, to entry-level, to management roles are likely to be generated, and the specificity of

many of the roles are likely to require the uptake of new skills and potentially qualifications for

people employed here – providing a significant advantage in an area with a currently low skills

base and level of qualification attainment.

4.23 The jobs provided will include professional sports managers, administrators and coaches, but

also a lot of flexible employment, temporary, seasonal, part-time, and low-skilled positions.

These facilities, if they adopt a policy of local recruitment and training, can provide

opportunities for a range of flexible, entry-level positions that are particularly accessible to

those just entering or returning to the labour market.

4.24 Commercial, public and not-for-profit sectors help to diversify the economic base and also

contribute to more sustainable communities. There are a small but growing number of sports

social enterprises – sports businesses that are driven by social aims and reinvest surpluses

back in to the business or community – helping to train and increase the skills of local people

and making an important economic contribution.

4.25 The value of sports-orientated employment programmes can also stem from their appeal to

certain groups of long-term unemployed and their contribution to the reduction in social

exclusion through the development of 'employment networks'. Because of the personal and

educational development needs of many long-term unemployed, sports-orientated

employment schemes can provide an excellent opportunity for parallel supporting

programmes.

4.26 Sports facilities, activities and events can act as a catalyst to regeneration in an area and

bring real economic benefit. At a local level, the provision of new sports facilities adds to the


40

attractiveness of the location as somewhere to live and can send out a message that growth

and investment is taking place in the area. This can make the area of interest to local

developers and businesses looking for new or expanding markets.

4.27 The development of new sports facilities, particularly major event facilities, has wider benefits

for other local businesses and for those living in the area. London 2012 economic impact

reports estimate an overall positive effect for the UK and London economies with an increase

in Gross Domestic Product.

4.28 There has been broad evidence in recent history that sports venues can become the

centrepiece of regeneration initiatives that seek to capture recreation, tourism and retail

activity. Investment in sporting infrastructure in cities over the past 25 years has not been

primarily aimed at getting the local community involved in sport, but has instead been aimed

at attracting tourists, encouraging inward investment and changing the image of urban

environments experiencing deprivation and decline. In the British context, most of the urban

areas following this strategy of using sport for economic regeneration have been traditionally

industrial or manufacturing-based areas not normally known as major tourist destinations (e.g.

Sport City in east Manchester), the decline of which has been the key driver to promoting the

need for a new image and new employment opportunities.

4.29 An initial Business Case for the Proposed Development has been drawn up in partnership

between the developers, LBL and Sport England (Appendix 1), which estimates that the

combined facilities on-site could have an annual throughput of over 560,000 visits in the first

year of operation, and up to around 600,000 after five years of operation. Total income per

visit is estimated at £4.12, indicating a total spend of around £2.3m per year rising to around

£2.5m per year.

4.30 The range of facilities provided at Surrey Canal, and the organisations potentially involved will

cement the area‟s reputation as a centre for sport, leisure and health, and could in the future

become the focus of specific events, attracting additional visitors and putting North Lewisham

firmly on the map.

Summary of Business Case for Sports Facilities

4.31 The proposals for sporting facilities as a central part of Surrey Canal are based on a

combination of responding to identified local need, including social and health inequalities

alongside quantitative facility deficiency, and the regenerative effects of regionally-significant

facilities.

4.32 There is a priority to deliver indoor hall space across LBL, especially the Surrey Canal area,

and it has been identified that the specific provision of indoor athletics, basketball, cricket and

netball facilities in particular play well to local sport priorities, demographic characteristics and

the aspirations of National Governing Bodies.


41

4.33 Through work undertaken by Renewal, it was found that there was a need to focus the

developments on club activity and the importance of having commercial elements in the

scheme to drive sustainability. Through good management and facilitation of these elements,

Surrey Canal can play a key role in bridging the gap between community and club

development and delivering „world class start‟ facilities accessible at a regional scale.


42

Part 5: Conclusions

5.1 The submission of this planning application for a comprehensive mixed-use facility at Surrey

Canal represents a key step-change in the economic and social fabric of North Lewisham.

5.2 The proposals, based on extensive pre-application discussions, stakeholder engagement and

years of close working with the Council and local community, have emerged from a detailed

framework for regeneration and will provide a lasting legacy for the area. This legacy will build

upon the Site‟s existing sporting and leisure facilities to establish a place of regional and local

sporting excellence and improve local, physical and community infrastructure, routes and

connections and areas of local publicly accessible open space, to the benefit of the local

community.

5.3 The regeneration of Surrey Canal is an excellent example of development taking advantage

of local potential, and providing a scheme tailored to addressing local needs, providing an

economic shift towards growing sectors and offering the kind of housing, jobs, community

facilities and environmental improvements that will help local communities reduce deprivation

and inequality.

5.4 The Proposed Development supports the regeneration process in North Lewisham by

providing a critical mass of activity that will enhance the image of the area as somewhere

people want to live, work and visit. In doing this, it will:

Create 700 full time equivalent jobs in construction and when completed directly

accommodate up to 2,000 jobs, (around 1,500 more than the capacity of current

uses) in a range of occupations and skill levels at the operational phase, helping to

rebalance the local economy by providing jobs in key private sector-led growth

sectors in the London economy;

Provide around 2,500 homes in a range of sizes and tenures, meeting a housing

need;

Ensure a comprehensive mixed-use development, maximizing the locational

advantages of a site currently underperforming with low grade uses;

Provide a regionally-significant sport and leisure offer with a broad range of

facilities for elite and community use;

Increase accessibility and permeability to encourage walking and cycling, and

create an active urban environment in a currently isolated and poor quality

industrial landscape; and

Provide high quality new publicly accessible open space and child play space.


43

5.5 Throughout the Proposed Development, the key driver will be to respond to local needs and

maximise the benefits for local people.


44

Part 6: References

1 London Borough of Lewisham (2010) Lewisham Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (Proposed

Submission for Consultation)

2 Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation

3 Metropolitan Police (2010) Notifiable Offences Crime Mapping

4 NHS Lewisham (2010) North Lewisham Health Needs

5 London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2007-2008

6 GLA Economics (2006) Annual Long-run Employment

7 Department for Work and Pensions (2010) Job Seekers Allowance Claimant Count

8 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Employment Land Study

9 NHS Lewisham and London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Health, Well-Being and Care, Lewisham‟s Joint

Strategic Needs Assessment

10 DCLG (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation in the UK

11 London Health Observatory (2009) Summary Statistics

12 London Borough of Lewisham, Urban Practitioners (2010) Lewisham Borough Wide Character Study

13 HSMO (2010) Our Programme for Government

14 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Business Plan

15 GLA (2008) The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, Consolidated with

Alterations since 2004

16 GLA (2009) The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Consultation Draft

Replacement Plan

17 LDA (2005) Economic Development Strategy – Sustaining Success: Developing London‟s Economy

18 GLA (2010) The Mayor‟s Economic Development Strategy for Greater London

19 GLA (2010) The London Housing Strategy

20 London Borough of Lewisham (2007) Lewisham Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 2004) Saved Policies

22 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) People, Prosperity, Place: Lewisham Regeneration Strategy

23 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Shaping our Future: Lewisham‟s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-

2020

24 London Borough of Lewisham (2005) Social Inclusion Strategy 2005-2013

25 London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Lewisham Housing Strategy: Homes for the Future: Raising Aspirations,

Creating Choice and Meeting Need 2009-2014

26 London Borough of Lewisham (2004) Economic Development Business Plan

27 London Borough of Lewisham (2006) Lewisham Physical Activity, Sport and Leisure Strategy

28 GLA (2006) Working Paper 39: Borough Employment Projections to 2031


45

29 Sport England (2009) Shaping Places Through Sport

30 Sport England (2005) Grow, Sustain, Excel

31 The Scottish Executive and Centre for Leisure Research (2000) The Role of Sport in Regenerating Deprived

Areas

32 Sport England (2010) The Economic Value of Sport in England 1985-08


46

1 London Borough of Lewisham (2010) Lewisham Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (Proposed

Submission for Consultation)

2 Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation

3 Metropolitan Police (2010) Notifiable Offences Crime Mapping

4 NHS Lewisham (2010) North Lewisham Health Needs

5 London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2007-2008

6 GLA Economics (2006) Annual Long-run Employment

7 Department for Work and Pensions (2010) Job Seekers Allowance Claimant Count

8 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Employment Land Study

9 NHS Lewisham and London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Health, Well-Being and Care, Lewisham‟s Joint

Strategic Needs Assessment

10 DCLG (2007) Indices of Multiple Deprivation in the UK

11 London Health Observatory (2009) Summary Statistics

12 London Borough of Lewisham, Urban Practitioners (2010) Lewisham Borough Wide Character Study

13 HSMO (2010) Our Programme for Government

14 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Business Plan

15 GLA (2008) The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London, Consolidated with

Alterations since 2004


47

16 GLA (2009) The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London: Consultation Draft

Replacement Plan

17 LDA (2005) Economic Development Strategy – Sustaining Success: Developing London‟s Economy

18 GLA (2010) The Mayor‟s Economic Development Strategy for Greater London

19 GLA (2010) The London Housing Strategy

20 London Borough of Lewisham (2007) Lewisham Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 2004) Saved Policies

21 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) People, Prosperity, Place: Lewisham Regeneration Strategy

22 London Borough of Lewisham (2008) Shaping our Future: Lewisham‟s Sustainable Community Strategy 2008-

2020

23 London Borough of Lewisham (2005) Social Inclusion Strategy 2005-2013

24 London Borough of Lewisham (2009) Lewisham Housing Strategy: Homes for the Future: Raising Aspirations,

Creating Choice and Meeting Need 2009-2014

25 London Borough of Lewisham (2004) Economic Development Business Plan

26 London Borough of Lewisham (2006) Lewisham Physical Activity, Sport and Leisure Strategy

27 GLA (2006) Working Paper 39: Borough Employment Projections to 2031

28 Sport England (2009) Shaping Places Through Sport

29 Sport England (2005) Grow, Sustain, Excel


48

30 The Scottish Executive and Centre for Leisure Research (2000) The Role of Sport in Regenerating Deprived

Areas

31 Sport England (2010) The Economic Value of Sport in England 1985-08

Business Case for Sport

1

1. Business Case for Sport

1.1 Introduction and Context

This reports sets out the outline business case for the sporting elements of the Surrey Canal regeneration

and represents key evidence for the outline planning application.

The business case has been developed over the past twelve months in close consultation with Sport

England, Lewisham Council, Southwark Council, Pro-Active East, relevant National Governing Bodies of

Sport (NGBs) and local clubs. The detailed list of consultees who we have engaged with throughout the

process is included in the Statement of Community Engagement.

At all stages of the development of the project, partners have been consulted and involved in shaping the

final scheme content. The business case outlines both the case and process undertaken to establish the

proposed facility mix.

The business case is supported by and should be read alongside various key documents, namely:

Final Needs and Evidence Report April 2009

Statement of Community Engagement

The above documents provide the detail behind the scheme evolution and content highlighted in this

business case report.

1.2 Needs and Evidence Base 1.2.1 Introduction

In November 2009 Neil Allen Associates (NAA) were commissioned by Renewal to examine the needs

and demands for sport at the Surrey Canal site. This followed a recommendation from Sport England for

Renewal to develop a clear and robust needs and evidence base for the sporting elements of the mix. Set

out below is a synopsis of the needs and evidence findings, this should be read in conjunction with the

Needs and Evidence Report, which is included as within the planning application.

The overall aim of the needs and evidence work was to:

Identify sports facilities project(s) which could be a landmark development in the Surrey Canal area, based on need and viability and utilising Sport England planning tools

Identify sporting projects which have a status with the London wide and local sporting community, leading National Governing Bodies (NGBs) of sport, local authorities and potential commercial developers.

The methodology for the work was developed in partnership with Renewal, Lewisham Council and Sport

England.

1.3 Strategic Context


2

Surrey Canal is at the north western edge of Lewisham, at the boundary with Southwark and is the

closest part of the Borough to Central London. The vast majority of the site is owned by the property

company Renewal and the London Borough of Lewisham.

Lewisham is undergoing significant change. The emerging Lewisham Local Development Framework

(LDF) sets out the vision, objectives, strategy and policies that will guide development and regeneration in

Lewisham over the next 15 years. Surrey Canal is identified within the Core Strategy as an area for major

regeneration. Renewal is leading the development of the site in partnership with Lewisham Council and

local stakeholders. What was evident from discussions leading up to the needs and evidence work was

the potential to develop part of the site for community and new sporting facilities.

It was evident at the early stage of the work that Lewisham Council were keen to ensure that any proposed developments were in line with the emerging strategic context and priorities as set out in the Council’s Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) study and emerging Sports Plan. These key strategic documents were used to set the context, shape the work and identify the emerging priorities for the site. It was also agreed that due to the location of the Surrey Canal site and pan-London transport links, the focus of any development should be seen to ‘add value’ to the current Lewisham offer and deliver sub-regional London wide needs. In this context the needs analysis work also focused on consultation with NGBs.

Map 1: Active People Participation Across Lewisham

The sports participation profile across

Lewisham based on Active People (AP) data

is illustrated on the map alongside. The

areas of white and lighter blue are the areas

of lowest participation. The Surrey Canal site

is highlighted by the red triangle and

illustrates the site is located in an area of low

participation.

Participation across the Borough reduced in

the last AP survey (AP3) in December 2009

and is now in line with the average across

the Sports Partnership (CSP) area, but

below the national averages. This is

significant in the context of the Borough’s

aspiration to improve the health of residents.

Further analysis of the sports participation

data for Lewisham reveals the following:

Sport England KPI 1 (participation i.e. % of the population taking part in 30 minutes of exercise three or more times a week) is 18.5% for Lewisham, below the national average of 21.6%

Sport England KPI 2 (volunteering) is 3.6% for Lewisham, below the national average of 4.7%

Sport England KPI 3 (club membership) is 21.9% for Lewisham, below the national average of 24.1%

Sport England KPI 4 (tuition) is 18.2% for Lewisham, above the national average of 17.5%


3

Sport England KPI 5 (organised competition) is 12.4% for Lewisham, below the national average of 14.4%

Sport England KPI 6 (satisfaction) is 56.9% for Lewisham, below the national average of 68.4% but a statistically significant increase on the previous 12 months

From this analysis it was evident that there was a clear need across the borough to increase levels of

regular participation and provide enhanced opportunities for volunteering, coaching and organised sport

amongst the adult population in line with regional and national averages. This was recognised as a key

priority for the Borough. Improved facility provision was also recognised as having a key role to play in

supporting the delivery of improved performance and therefore driving the health agenda of the authority.

Participation in sport was recognised as a clear issue across the borough, which was linked to health and deprivation indices. The 2005 national survey Understanding Participation in Sport, published by Sport England, identified poor quality facilities as a limiting factor in participation. The provision of facilities therefore has a key role to play. Providing better and more accessible facilities can play an important role in driving increased participation. If the authority is to deliver on its health agenda the future development of facility assets have a crucial role to play in order to make participation more socially equitable across the Borough.

Certainly in terms of quality factors there would appear to be concerns. The data in the table below highlights low satisfaction levels with the current facility stock and sports provision across Lewisham, equally significant is the priority placed on residents to improve provision and see investment in sports facilities across Lewisham. In short what emerged from the needs and evidence work was a clear need to increase levels of satisfaction with sports facility provision in Lewisham to provide a positive experience of sport.

Table 1: Key Facility PIs for Lewisham, demonstrating the need to improve facility provision in the area

The work identified a clear issue in terms of the perception of quality and satisfaction with the current

sport and leisure infra-structure, which in turn impacted on participation and health issues. The

development of high quality needs led facilities is therefore seen as a critical strategic priority for the area

if the authority is to achieve its priorities.

The Council’s Leisure Plan (see below) highlighted particular priorities in terms of targeting interventions.

The Sports Plan noted, ‘the Borough is placed in the bottom quartile nationally for five of the six Sport

Lewisham

KPI 6 – Satisfaction with local

sports provision (AP3)

56.9%

(66% CSP)

Very or fairly satisfied with sport

and leisure facilities (2008 Place

Survey)

32.6% (46.5% London)

Percentage of residents who

identify sports & leisure facilities

as something most in need of

improvement?

27.6% (top 5% quartile)

http://oneplace.direct.gov.uk/infobyarea/region/area/areaperformanceindicators/pages/default.aspx?area=376&gearsentid=2721-AC&gearsexpcats=190&region=51&Gkey=282VqIaaVSLC%2biV6EkzqtvgvKdMUzTs6DFFphGosjsxfZ2B7D%2b7dMbwpUgviBpwKqO%2bRlg%2fnr0hMWoYq3FsYIpegnaZSorDry%2bjfiVQt%2b9t92lMyCFAgVSGfCdn9PPGgxbpsIYc3Hc3Gycqw5bpmAniNAbW3i775MSx9R7FVHIriq58hOI6vwrtPINVRwgLcB6ONYNpf%2foA02nTKis0n95sVUXjZppo9Awp%2b1be4xmAw2yIUGVb%2fgmd5mrybDIeFmuTVPFG5PDEx%2bqTRKsQkjCFLsDuL0guQ2znTdDnvON5ERmdJLCSkeXseWRanmLwqUmm7%2faKOVp8%3d





4

England Active People KPIs and below the London average on all KPIs’. It also noted, broadly in line with

national and regional trends, rates of participation in Lewisham are generally lower amongst key target

groups.

1.4 Sporting Context

Lewisham’s Leisure and Open Space Study (PPG17 study) was finalised in January 2010 and set the context for surpluses and deficiencies in sport and recreation provision across the borough. The vision for the Leisure and Open Space across the borough is ‘to protect, enhance and cherish open space for the benefit of local people, the wider community and for future generations.’

The study looked across typologies, including indoor sport provision in terms of indoor sport provision the following quantity standards have been set:

0.29 badminton courts per 1,000 population

10.91m sq of swimming pool water space per 1,000 population

3.97 health and fitness stations per 1,000 population

0.03 indoor tennis courts per 1,000 population

In terms of accessibility the provision standard was set at a 20 minute walk-time to indoor sports provision. The policy priorities for indoor sport set out in the study are for sports halls, where there is a recognized undersupply, which is exacerbated by schools not opening up their facilities and indoor tennis where potential for an 8-court facility is identified. Swimming Pool provision as a result of the proposed developments is not identified as a priority.

The issue of sports hall provision has been identified in previous studies the Lewisham Council School Sport Strategy, which was developed to support the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme identified a shortage in sports hall space across the borough.

The Lewisham Sports Plan sets out a vision for ‘to increase opportunities to participate in sport at all levels and for all ages.’ The Plan sets out 6 priority areas as follows:

Facility development

Club development

Workforce development

Sport in education

Sporting opportunities for all

Talent pathways

In terms of facility development the Plan recognises the issue of sports hall deficiencies and the opportunities to develop specialist provision around tennis and gymnastics. The role of BSF is also highlighted as a potential means to deliver.

The authority has established a series of focus sports as follows:


5

The priority sports are:

Football

Cricket

Swimming

Basketball

Gymnastics

Athletics

Netball

The development sports are;

Tennis

Table Tennis

Cycling

Hockey

Judo

Rugby Union

The Council are keen to ensure a facility infra-structure to deliver against the focus sports and these were therefore recognised as important considerations in defining needs and opportunities for the Surrey Canal site.

The development of talent pathways highlights facility access as a key barrier to talent development and the delivery of Lewisham Sporting Talent Strategy (2009-13) ‘Together Everyone Achieves More.’

The Council were keen to stress throughout this process the critical importance of developments at Surrey Canal falling in line with the authorities’ context and key priorities. It was therefore evident that the focus of any development at Surrey Canal should be around indoor hall sport to meet the demographic needs of Lewisham (all ages) and the focus sport priorities (all levels). It was also be critical to ensure developments were in line with PPG17 standards. The needs and evidence work was therefore shaped in this context.

1.5 Supply and Demand Analysis

Given the priorities identified through the consultation and strategic review the supply and demand analysis focused on the assessment of the supply and demand for sports halls in the Lewisham and Southwark areas and the wider East and Central London Partnership areas. These were considered to be the areas where developments at Surrey Canal could ‘add value’ and align best with the Council’s key priorities.

Looking at PPG17 study and applying the local standards to the Surrey Canal site revealed the following. Within a 20-minute walk time of the site (accessibility standard for indoor sport), which is marked by the blue cross, there is a population of 46,554. The map below illustrates that in terms of indoor hall provision


6

there are only 3 facilities within 20 minutes walk time access to the site the Millwall Community Centre, Deptford Green School and New Cross Sports Arena, which are marked by the green triangles.

Map and Table 2: Map and Distribution of Sports Halls (all providers) in 20 minute walk of SCT site

Applying the quantity standard (0.29 courts per 1,000 population) to the Surrey Canal catchment area revealed the need for 13.5 courts. The Millwall Community Centre whilst an indoor space is a specialist facility for football. According to Active Places, Deptford Green has 3 courts and New Cross 1 court, although the accessibility to both is limited. The only BSF development within the SC catchment will see the potential development of a new 4-court hall at Deptford Green, which will increase supply in the area by one court, although the access arrangements are likely to be limited. Applying the Council’s standards to the Surrey Canal catchment therefore revealed a significant shortfall in indoor hall space both now and in the future.

To analyse the sports hall issue further we used the Facilities Planning Model (FPM). The analysis set out is based on 2009 findings and drawn from work undertaken by Sport England. This indentifies the location and capacity of each sports hall in the area and then compares this supply with the demand for sports halls by the resident population, based on where they live and applying the rate and frequency of sports participation in hall sports by both sexes and for 5 age bands.

This supply and demand assessment then identifies if there is either unmet demand for sports halls, or, over supply (spare capacity) and in either instance, the scale and location of this unmet demand or over supply. The findings for the Lewisham illustrated the following:

In 2009 there was an aggregated unmet demand across Lewisham for between 7 and 15 badminton courts. Unmet demand for sports halls is highest in the north and west side of the borough, at the Surrey Canal site it is 15 badminton courts. In the south of the borough unmet demand is lowest at 7 badminton courts. The average across the borough is for 12 badminton courts.

Facility Count by travel time

Post Code: SE163LN

Facility Type: Sports Hall

Facility Sub Type: Main

Mode of Travel: By Walk

Symbol Range (Minute(s))

0 - 10

10.1 - 20

20.1 - 30

30.1 - 45

45.1 - 60


7

To the west of the Surrey Canal site and extending into Southwark unmet demand for sports halls is higher at around 17 badminton courts.

The key strategic priorities, demographic analysis and supply and demand modeling provided the context for looking at future provision options at the Surrey Canal site. This analysis was developed further via consultation with NGBs. The detailed consultation findings are set out in the Needs and Evidence Report, set out below is an overview of the initial NGB responses.

Indoor Hall Sports venue for combination of Ball Sports - particular requirement for netball and basketball and for an events venue. Both sports are used to working together on shared venues. There is a lack of events venues in London and London is the region with greatest sports development need and potential for participation growth. Opportunity to develop the project around these sports as critical mass and they have a high profile, sports development focus in both Lewisham and Southwark. Basketball is possibly the key development sport for Lewisham in terms of attraction to young males, it profiles the Lewisham young male population and the development of the Forrest Hill club has massively promoted the sport. Lewisham has a complete lack of basketball size sport halls above 1 basketball court. Basketball with netball provides the driver/critical mass to bring together local sport development and NGB need in a regeneration project. Opportunity to build onto the critical mass by inclusion of volleyball. Baseball/softball is another potential need and user. They have an indoor London league (around 20 clubs – small but growing) and have limited access to venues so this could add to critical sporting mass. Possibly more importantly include sports which have a stated need in Lewisham for big sports hall space and the key development sports here are table tennis who need a dedicated venue for continuity and to provide a club base (for 12 table) but not dedicated space. Plus gymnastics and especially trampoline so a recreational level facility for gymnastics but higher level development for trampoline.

Indoor Cricket Centre - a sport specific dedicated venue for cricket development which fits the ECB club level requirement for facility development of a 4- 6 lane indoor venue. Kent CC very keen to establish a base in this area of London and for a programme of cricket development for KCC and local SE London clubs. Also real opportunity to develop indoor 6 a side cricket club league venue for South London.

1.6 Summary Taking the NGB views and priorities alongside the local needs the analysis revealed the following in terms of needs and opportunities for the Surrey Canal site:

There is a priority to deliver indoor hall space across Lewisham and in the Surrey Canal catchment, which is particularly deficient

The form of any indoor hall development should deliver against Council priorities in terms of demographics and focus sport priorities

Basketball and netball play well to local sport priorities, demographics and NGB needs

Cricket presents a good fit for Lewisham in terms of priority sports, market segmentation and demographics (delivering to young people and BME needs)

Kent CC a keen and willing partner in terms of cricket development

Flexibility to accommodate table tennis, boxing and gymnastics should also be considered

In terms of tennis Southwark and Greenwich appear better placed to deliver


8

The facility mix from the needs and evidence work was therefore defined as follows:

Indoor Hall Sports Venue for a combination of Ball Sports – netball and basketball events venue and club development

4-6 lane indoor cricket centre to deliver needs of Kent CC and cricket development

Indoor Athletics Training Venue to deliver sub-regional gap in south-east London

Potential to explore flexible accommodation for table tennis, boxing and gymnastics

The needs and evidence was presented to both Lewisham Council and Sport England in June 2010 who were supportive of the findings and direction set out. The potential to create a sporting centre for South London; a London Sports Academy, delivering sports services, ancillary provision, office space for sport was considered to be an exciting proposition.


9

2. Refining the Brief Following the needs and evidence work and initial presentations to Sport England and Lewisham various further presentations and consultations were held to ‘check and challenge’ the findings and refine the facility mix. This included an NGB workshop and subsequent one to one meeting with NGBs. Further individual meetings and discussions, with representatives from Lewisham and Southwark Council and various educational institutions were also held. A consultation presentation was used as the basis for these sessions and refining the brief. Renewal also embarked on various visits to understand the scale and operation of potential developments, this included Sheffield EIS, Loughborough EIS, Manchester SportsCity and indoor athletics provision at Newham. What was evident from the meetings and visits was the need to focus developments on club activity and the importance of having commercial elements in the scheme to drive sustainability. It was evident that NGBs per se do not have the capacity to deliver usage and drive sustainability of any developments; this will need to be achieved through a combination of club development, community and educational usage with any performance or events usage likely to be secondary. It was agreed that Surrey Canal was not about the delivery of elite performance but could play a key role in bridging the gap between community and club development and delivering ‘world class start’ opportunities within the South London area. Based on the principles set out above, the table below highlights the outcomes of the further detailed work with Lewisham Council, Southwark Council, Pro-Active East, NGBs and clubs to refine the facility mix and develop a needs-driven sustainable solution for Surrey Canal. The table highlights on a sport by sport basis how the facility mix has been refined form the initial needs and evidence work. Table 3: Summary of Consultations to refine the Facility Mix

Sport Current Activity and Location

Key Issues and Challenges

Surrey Canal Facility and Usage

Gymnastics Current gymnastics club based at Bellingham (Ladywell Gym Club) in the South of the Borough (Accredited)

Trampolining club (Aim High Trampolining) currently based at Knights Academy (Accredited)

Facility at Bellingham has been identified as a potential 2012 training venue

A Lewisham Priority focus sport

Waiting list of approx 900 at Bellingham therefore capacity for additional club base

Trampolining a key activity currently takes place at Knights Academy, Deptford Green, Conisborough College, Forest Hill and Sydenham Schools.

Dedicated high performance centre being developed at Tooting and Mitcham so dedicated centre not appropriate at Surrey Canal

Potential for a feeder base in the North to feed into Bellingham – flexible facility to cater for trampolining, cheerleading, pre-school, recreational classes

A multi-use area with sufficient height to be used for trampolining

Flexible hall with a pit and sprung floor behind a flexible wall

Also potential future role for Surrey Canal given changes at DG; could become the base for Deptford Green Trampolining

Approach outlined supported by


10




Lewisham, NGB and Ladywell Gym club, who would be interested in being a key user

Athletics Kent AC based at Ladywell Arena in the centre of the Borough.

Ladywell Arena also used by Blackheath and Bromley Harriers.

Cambridge Harriers located just over the Lewisham/Greenwich border.

2 new Junior Clubs recently set up. GMAX Trackstars in the North and East of the Borough, and S Factor Academy in the West.

Ladywell Arena has been identified as a potential 2012 training venue

Wheelchair racing club based at Ladywell Arena as well as a team of athletes who represent GB at Special Olympic events

A Lewisham Priority Focus Sport

Ladywell Arena is about to undergo a £250k refurbishment

Historically not much provision for under 14s and women. (two new junior clubs very much in their infancy)

Ongoing grounds issues with Ladywell Arena

Lack of funding to support Junior and Women’s athletics

Not a priority for Lewisham Council

NGB skeptical about the potential of the club to use and sustain a specialist dedicated facility

If sports science/medicine is available then there are currently 5 GB athletes within Kent AC that could take advantage.

Providing a specialist indoor training venue for athletics is not considered a priority in the basis of financial sustainability and experience of other similar facilities across London e.g. Newham

Basketball One main club – Lewisham Thunder, based at Forest Hill School (Accredited)

Smaller club (sessions only really) at Millwall, Millwall Lions.

A number of Basketball Coaches from Thunder, Millwall and Greenhouse going into Schools within the Borough.

Thunder now has National League sides

Not enough facilities. Club is expanding rapidly, but is struggling to find additional facilities.

Facility size – to be able to take the next step they need to access a multi-court facility, preferably with proper spectator area.

Potential for a 3 court Basketball Hall, with central show court and retractable seating.

England Basketball has shown interest in using facilities in Lewisham for higher level training and competition

Luol Deng Foundation also in discussion about using the site as a key location and partnership project


11




in Mens and Boys, and starting National League for girls in September. Also have a Wheelchair section.

The Lewisham based Met Police Trident Team also train and compete (National League) in Lewisham


Aquatics One main Club, Saxon Crown (Accredited). Operates at all pools within the Borough including St Dunstan’s College. (So, Ladywell (central), Wavelengths (North west), Downham (south East), The Bridge (South), St Dunstan’s (West))

Club also has a disability Section, Tiger Sharks.

Small Disability Club for adults at Downham LC, Seals.

Water Polo now also happening at Saxon Crown

Diving taken care of at Crystal Palace NSC

A Lewisham Priority Focus sport

Pool hire costs

Availability of pools (at a reasonable cost) at the right time of day.

Cohesive pathway for young swimmers from school delivery through to club.

Not a priority and not in the original mix

Borough will have sufficient pool space once Forest Hill and Loam Pit Vale have been completed.

Lewisham Council not keen on a conventional pool, which would be viewed as competition – pool would have to be scaled to be an adjunct to the health and fitness offer as opposed to a serious swimming pool

Hydrotherapy could be a possibility.

Cricket 4 clubs in the borough; Catford and Cyphers, Sabina, Catford Wanderers and Blackheath. With most playing their cricket in the south of the borough.

Indoor Cricket nets at Forest Hill School & St Dunstans

Number of parks having their cricket squares reinstated.

A Lewisham Priority

No clubs have achieved accreditation

Lack of facilities- pitches and nets

Pathway from schools to clubs not great

Potential to work with KCC around an indoor centre.

Clubs seeking more access to indoor nets for winter use.

Kent CC still keen and could be a sustainable development given strength of cricket in the area

Lewisham Council are keen; key element of development


12




Focus Sport

Football 139 Teams in Lewisham Identified through the 2009-25 Playing Pitch Strategy.

In addition, London FA has over 200 small sided teams registered in Lewisham.

Championship Club Millwall FC based in North West

Lewisham Borough and Millwall Lionesses both supported by the Mayor of Lewisham


Less facility provision in the north of the borough.

Need to access more ATP and 3G pitches for training

Currently 4 full-size ATP in Lewisham, all in the south. And one 3G pitch, at Millwall Community Scheme. And also 3 additional ATPs in The South of the Borough (not full-size).

Potential to replace the Millwall Community Centre 3g Pitch.

Offer flexible sports hall for 5-a-side.

Majority of the small sided game is currently played at Catford Powerleague (which is currently looking at being sold by its owners)

Football an important element to retain and potentially expand as part of the scheme

Netball 3 Clubs within the borough. Raiders NC (Central), Sabina NC (Central), Millwall All Saints (North East).

Raiders and Sabina are both accredited.

1 indoor court at Prendergast Hilly Fields College (Central), and 1 at Millwall Lions Centre (North West)

2 Outdoor Courts at Prendergast Hilly Fields (Central), 5 at Sydenham School (South West) – including one with floodlights, 1 at St Matthew Academy (North East).

1 outdoor floodlit court recently provided at the Bridge LC in Lower Sydenham


Major lack of facilities – particularly indoor (given that it’s a winter sport), with only one floodlit outdoor court at a different venue.

Can’t run competitions due to lack of courts.

Both Accredited clubs are based at the same school (Prendergast Hilly Fields), just operate on different nights.

Potential to share a multi-court basketball facility. (Provided space is big enough for both sets of recommended run-offs)

Possible issue for high level with multi-lined courts (would be same for basketball) – EN Level 5 court needs seating for minimum of 500

Suggestions that Brunel Hurricanes Super League team may be looking for a new London base; potential anchor user, which will be explored further

Cycling Currently no club.

Used to be two clubs based in Catford (road cycling)

British Cycling has a base at Herne Hill just over the border in

No clubs.

Huge interest from young people and residents.

Not a priority.


13




Southwark.

A Lewisham Development Focus Sport

Judo Currently no club

Some development work focused around the Millwall area, driven through MCS.

Millwall Lions Centre identified as a potential 2012 training venue


No clubs

Highest interest from residents for any martial art.

Need to move development forward on back of training venue.

Multi-use hall with necessary matting available rather than a dedicated do-jo

Could feature as a flexible element of any development

Rugby Union One club in Borough – Whitefoot Lane Warriors (South East).

Two clubs over the border in Greenwich (Colfes and Blackheath)

Dedicated Lewisham Community Rugby Coach employed in partnership with RFU.

Potential new project around ‘Street Rugby’ being developed.


Club not accredited.

Club is in the South East of the Borough.

Street Rugby would target those in more deprived areas (North West)

Image of the sport

Use of the replacement 3G pitch at the relocated Millwall Community Scheme but no specialist provision envisaged

Table Tennis One accredited club, Fusion TTC at Knights Academy (South East).

Two new clubs (not accredited) at Forest Hill School (South west) and Deptford Green School (North West).

Used to be a huge sport in Lewisham.

Up until this year there was a full-time dedicated programme operating from Deptford Green School in partnership with TTK Greenhouse.

A Lewisham Development Focus

Lack of provision in the North West of the Borough since Greenhouse pulled out of Deptford Green.

Only accredited club is the South East.

Potential for dedicated hall for Club and NGB use (there is no Olympic Legacy Facility for Table Tennis).

Could be adjoining the Basketball/Netball centre, which would allow usage of the bigger spectator hall for comps, national champs etc

Ping London will hopefully increase the profile of the sport

ETTA very keen on investment; table tennis should feature


14




Sport as a flexible facility utilizing the hall space through a club development programme

Tennis One Club, Catford Wanderers (Central south).

Lots of courts in parks across the borough (though in various states of repair)

Club just over the borough in Bromley, Sydenham LTC.

Potential 2012 training facility at Sydenham High School (South West)


Club not accredited

No existing school-club links

Lack of co-ordinated approach to tennis in Lewisham.

Tennis Foundation has not expressed any interest. Would take up a lot of space, so would need guaranteed usage.

Always assumed Southwark the focus for tennis, not in the original mix and not a priority

Hockey

One club, Blackheath HC (South)

A Lewisham Development Focus sport

Issues with facility access.

Not a priority however consideration for hockey to feature as casual training opportunity in indoor centre

Badminton One club, Crofton Arrows (South)

Not a key sport for Lewisham

One end of the Borough, not represented in the North

NGB focused on club development in schools, no wider squad use

Markings in multi-use hall. Or under some of the retractable seating in Basketball/Netball arena (the non-show court)

Potential for community, school and casual use but Badminton England focusing club and performance development around school sites

Boxing One club – Double Jab Gym (South West)

Potential 2012 Training Venue, TA Boxing Club, Grove Park (South East)

Lynn Boxing club located over the border in Southwark are a 2012

Currently all focused in the South.

Would expect high demand in the North West if a facility was provided

Potential long-term home for Lynn Boxing Club

Discussions underway to help the club on a short and longer-term basis

NGB interested in the


15




Beacon Club, looking for new premises

site given boxing heritage in the area and envisage being a key partner

Health and Fitness

Currently 4 facilities within 20 minute walk catchment of the Surrey Canal site including the Milwall Community Centre, which has a 13 station facility

Southwark Park, Deptford Green both small facilities

Seven Islands Leisure Centre across the border in Southwark is the nearest of any scale has 92 stations, but this is not in the immediate catchment

Stations per thousand in Lewisham according to Active Places is 4.41 as opposed to the London ratio of 6.84 and England ratio of 5.66

Health and fitness viewed as vital in terms of sustainability and cross-training opportunities

Lewisham Council keen to see health and fitness feature to support the sustainability

Potential for up to 100 stations given the catchment and the anticipated increase on-site as a result of the residential development (circa 6,000 new homes)*

*The recent Fitness Industry Association (FIA) State of the Fitness Industry Report identified the population penetration figure for health and fitness membership as follows; an estimated 7.3% of the population being members of private clubs (up from 7.2% since 1st January 2006) and 4.6% holding membership at public fitness facilities. If we apply this data to the Surrey Canal catchment it helps to define the appropriate scale of provision. If we assume membership penetration of 6%, as the development will sit between a fully private and public offer. Applying this percentage to the potential catchment populations reveals the following potential membership figures. 6% of 46,554 (20-minute walk catchment) = 2,793 plus additional potential from extra 6,000 homes = 6% of 10,000 = 600. In terms of converting potential membership into number of stations and scale of facility the industry benchmarks are as follows:

Private sector 40 members per station

Private contractors 33 members per station

Public sector 20 members per station Using the private sector comparison, this would equate to 3,393 / 33 = 103 stations as the potential level of provision required in the Surrey Canal catchment. There is little quality provision in the immediate catchment, not all users would be members and building in a level of flexibility the scale for any health and fitness facility of circa 100 stations appears sound.

2.1 Proposed Schedule of Accommodation Based on the further work set out above, the scheme was fixed in September 2010 and detailed work undertaken to develop the scheme in its current form for outline planning. Surrey Canal is now presented as a very innovative project in terms of the scale and mix of sports facilities proposed; meeting not only the needs of the local community, schools and clubs but also servicing a South London and London wide need for club and NGBs. The project contains, within one


16

location, a sporting critical mass which is unique in London and in its current form, based on needs and evidence, refined through local consultation, will deliver a 3 court Basketball / Netball Centre, indoor 5-a-side football pitches, an indoor 6 lane cricket centre, a sport and health centre with pool and day spa; alongside flexible provision for climbing, table tennis, gymnastics, badminton and boxing. The proposed facility mix will meet the focus sport needs of all Lewisham focus sports apart from Athletics. The proposed schedule of accommodation is therefore as follows:

Indoor Cricket Centre – 6 lane specialist cricket centre with small reception / management point, changing, toilets, viewing, storage for bowling machines. Classrooms for video analysis and offices. Large bag drop area. Specialist cricket surface.

Sports Hall – 3-court netball / basketball centre with capacity for 1,500 spectators, reception / management point to manage event potential, plus ancillary spaces for event management potential, storage (minimum of 12.5% of floor area), changing, classroom, offices. Surface and heights compatible for basketball, netball and badminton (recreational).

Sport and Health Centre – 100 station health and fitness suite, dance studios, small pool (to support the health and fitness offer), sauna, steam, jacuzzi, spa provision. Large reception and café area, as this will be the main control point for the sports blocks. In terms of sporting elements – flexible gymnastics, boxing, table tennis and climbing. This will incorporate the following considerations:

o Two permanent boxing rinks, with mat and free weight space; the free weights area to share with

the H&F suite

o 24m x 35m flexible gymnastics space with a pit / sprung floor behind a retractable wall at one end

o Table tennis space to incorporate a flexible 15 table facility

o Climbing wall

o For all sports and the health centre elements - changing, heights, floors etc meet technical guidance and are compatible.

o This will be the main admin. block for the sports facilities therefore, staff offices, management and meeting rooms, first aid etc incorporated. Large storage area to accommodate – trampolines, mats, table tennis etc potentially up to 20% of floor area.

Football Centre – two indoor five-a-side football pitches with small reception / management point, changing, IT suite, storage, classrooms and offices. Surface compatible for both indoor hockey and football.

Renewal has met with Sport England architects and QS and the design specifications have been based around technical guidance notes. Meetings with Sports England and other interested bodies will continue and be on-going once outline planning is granted for the masterplan, in order to refine the brief.

2.2 Management and Operational Principles

Renewal is not a sport and leisure operator and will not have a role in managing the sports facilities on a

day-to-day basis however it is envisaged that a not-for profit Trust (Surrey Canal Sporting Foundation) will

be established to oversee the operation of the sports facilities. Renewal was excited by the model at

Sheffield EIS, where the facilities are managed under the guidance of a Trust Board by the operator

Sheffield International Venues (SIV) who are responsible for the day-to-day delivery on the basis of a

long-term contract with the Trust.


17

Renewal envisages a similar arrangement and discussions are already underway about the formation of

the Trust and potential Trustees. This is in line with Renewal’s philosophy for the whole development of

Surrey Canal. The structure is set out in the diagram below. It is envisaged there would be representation

on the Trust from Senior Lewisham Council representatives and key NGBs, who would set the strategic

policy direction and ensure delivery of the contractor by the operator. Day to day representation would

also be facilitated by the user group board.

The Audit Commission’s 2006 report: ‘Public sports and recreation services - Making them fit for the

future’, written in conjunction with Sport England, and focused on public indoor sports centres and

swimming pools. The report set out the main options for leisure management, which included:

In-house management Services are directly managed by Surrey Canal Sporting Foundation

Private contractor SCSF enters into a fixed term contact with a private sector company

Management through a Trust Either establishment of a new trust; becoming part of an already established trust; or creating a hybrid trust

The Reports key conclusions in terms of operational management were:

No single management option delivers the best overall value for money, or consistently results in

more investment or higher levels of participation. However, in-house services tend to be significantly

more expensive than the other options. This is becoming more marked over time.

The transfer of facilities to trusts has assisted councils to avoid the payment of non domestic rates.

This has potentially released funds for much needed local investment. However, our research has

found that the re-investment of significant levels of savings in sports and recreation provision is

infrequent.

Where taxation savings are re-invested they have tended to support maintenance budgets rather than

assist significant and often needed rationalisation and improvement of provision.


18

Investment in sports and recreation facilities is increasing but not at a pace that will address the

consequences of years of low spending on stock maintenance. The transfer of the management of

the business to trusts and to private sector contractors provides an opportunity to secure necessary

investment. There are few examples of new facilities or essential large scale refurbishments.

In terms of the management operator clearly Renewal does not intend to run the facilities ‘in-house’

through the SCSF. Lewisham Council is also in the middle of a procurement exercise to rationalize and

externalise its sport and leisure management operation to either a private contractor or Trust operator.

Discussions had been held about including the ‘Surrey Canal offer’ as a variant bid in this process

however timescales precluded this. There remains however the opportunity, once the procurement

exercise is complete and an operator secured, for discussions to be held with the successful contractor re

Surrey Canal.

It is envisaged therefore that a third party operator will be procured to operate the facilities either a Trust

or private sector operator. Renewal is aware of the options in terms of securing a leisure management

operator and has begun ‘soft market testing’ based on the specific issues in the London market, as set

out below.

In 2008 only eight of the 33 boroughs had an

in-house operation. The same number has

contracted out to the private sector. The

biggest sector, by far, in the capital is trust

management, with 17 of the boroughs using

this type of operation. While this

disproportionate propensity for trust

management is in itself noteworthy, perhaps

the single most interesting aspect of it is that

14 boroughs now use GLL (formerly

Greenwich Leisure Limited) for sports facility

management. GLL, as its original name

suggests, originated in Greenwich and was

registered under the Industrial & Provident Societies (IPS) Act in July 1993, after which the facilities in

Greenwich were transferred. It has expanded across London (and increasingly the South East) ever

since. Fusion Leisure Trust is now also very active in London and manages Southwark facilities on behalf

of the local authority. The procurement process currently being undertaken by Lewisham Council and the

outcome of this will help to steer the procurement direction and help to define the final strategy adopted

by Renewal in terms of the open or closed nature of any strategy and how dialogue is undertaken.

In terms of assessing the management options the inter-relationship between needs, resources, priorities

and the delivery options will be crucial, as set out in the diagram below, which is taken from

Understanding Commissioning - a practical guide for the culture and sport sector - Local Government

Improvement and Development (formally I&DeA).

When considering the management options going forward

it will be important to relate these to the Lewisham

corporate objectives and sport and leisure priorities but

also consider key partner (NGB and clubs needs). How

can future management options and service delivery

in house

private

trust


19

support what we are trying to achieve across Lewisham at Surrey Canal.

At this stage within this high level strategic business case we have set out an overview of the strategic

needs assessment work, which has defined the needs, facility mix and the priorities. Discussions have

begun in terms of delivery options and procurement as set out and these will be on-going as the scheme

and business case evolves, in line with the cycle set out below.

Diagram 1; Extract from ‘Understanding Commissioning - a practical guide for the culture and sport sector - Local Government

Improvement and Development (formally I&DeA).’

Renewal will continue to work through the options and issues and seek to develop a specification and

contract. Procurement issues will remain under discussion as the project progresses through the planning

application process and the procurement strategy will be finalised. At this stage what is clear is that a

Trust will be established to oversee the management of the sports facilities, which will be undertaken by

either an existing Trust operator or private sector contractor. Given Surrey Canal will be a crucial facility to

deliver the sporting objective for Lewisham, Renewal will seek to coordinate this with leisure management

arrangements across the borough and in neighbouring Southwark.


20

3. Business Plan An outline business plan based on the principles set out above has been produced, the detail of which is set out in the detailed Business Planning Models. The financial projections set out in the models are based on the facility mix and anticipated user groups set out in previous sections. The models include detailed assumptions and all have been based on the following broad principles:

One management organisation will operate all elements of the sports facilities as set out above

Business plan reflects the facility mix set out and driven by square metre areas and costs per square metre

Programmes of use reflect a balance of casual and school use, club development and NGB usage

Health and fitness will be a combination of pay and play and membership usage

Pricing structure reflects Lewisham and London market norms

Income, expenditure and throughput has been benchmarked and is line with industry norms as highlighted in the table below

Table 4 : Business Plan Performance Summary

INCOME ALL FACILITIES Sport & Health Centre Sports Hall Indoor Cricket Centre Football Centre

Total Income per Visit £4.12 £5.85 £2.77 £3.06 £2.35

Total Income per Square Metre of Facility £170.47 £271.92 £80.81 £125.85 £109.55

Total Income per Square Metre of Sporting Activity Space £264.90 £380.34 £161.44 £337.51 £131.83

Catering Income per Visit £0.32 £0.45 £0.20 £0.20 £0.20

Retail Income per Visit £0.05 £0.05 £0.04 £0.20 £0.05

EXPENDITURE ALL FACILITIES Sport & Health Centre Sports Hall Indoor Cricket Centre Football Centre

Staff Costs as a % of Total Programme Income 47.1% 33.2% 62.1% 106.5% 65.0%

Staff Costs as a % of Total Costs 44.6% 43.6% 38.5% 57.0% 43.0%

Administration Costs as a % of Total Costs 15.1% 13.2% 18.7% 14.6% 16.5%

% Cost Recovery (i.e. total income/total expenditure) 104.7% 143.9% 67.9% 59.3% 78.8%

Catering Costs of Sales as a % of Catering Income 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0% 70.0%

Utilities Costs per Square Metre of Facility £26.40 £34.19 £21.00 £21.00 £21.00

Repairs & Maintenance Costs per Square Metre of Facility £13.05 £13.81 £12.25 £14.08 £11.99

Advertising & Marketing Costs as a % of Total Income 2.7% 2.7% 2.3% 2.7% 2.5%

Cleaning Costs per Square Metre of Facility £5.00 £5.00 £5.00 £5.00 £5.00

Operational Subsidy per Visit N/A N/A -£1.31 -£2.10 -£0.63

Operational Subsidy per Square Metre N/A N/A -£38.24 -£86.27 -£29.51

Insurance Costs per Square Metre £21.08 £21.20 £20.00 £25.00 £20.00

THROUGHPUT VISITS ALL FACILITIES Sport & Health Centre Sports Hall Indoor Cricket Centre Football Centre

Visits per Square Metre of Facility 41 47 29 41 47

Visits per Square Metre of Sporting Activity Space 64 65 58 110 56

Operational Performance

(ALL FACILITIES)


21

The business plan has been critiqued and peer assessed by Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) a leading operator in the London market as part of the ‘soft market testing’ described earlier and there is operator enthusiasm about Surrey Canal. The business plan will be refined in line with the business planning cycle highlighted earlier in this document into a final business plan as the scheme takes shape and is finalised. The plan provides a starting point but illustrates clearly in operational terms the development is sustainable. The assumptions in terms of usage are conservative. Renewal are considering how the overall lifecycle costs will be treated and the potential for cross-subsidy (the current business plan has been developed to illustrate the standalone operational position of the sports elements) as part of the wider scheme, which will impact significantly on the bottom line. Other areas where the current position is likely to be improved financially include:

Factoring in potential NNDR and VAT benefits if Trust managed

Potential revenue / programme funding contributions via local authority, Kent CC, NGBs, wider regeneration / health funding etc

Cross-subsidy into sport from commercial rental or ground leases

careful spatial planning to reduce management costs, particularly staffing

Subject to the development of the business plan, the revenue deficit will be guaranteed and funded for a number of years. This will be the subject of on-going discussions, again Renewal will play its part as the Sports Village vision is central to the successful delivery of a vibrant neighbourhood renowned as a major sporting destination. The overall headline projections are set out in the table overleaf.


22

INCOME Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Programme Income

Sport & Health Centre £1,387,765 £1,453,614 £1,510,078 £1,555,682 £1,600,713

Sports Hall £262,765 £271,713 £279,761 £288,210 £294,628

Indoor Cricket Centre £180,816 £188,630 £196,051 £202,414 £208,529

Football Centre £265,682 £276,415 £286,172 £293,370 £299,266

Sub-Total £2,097,028 £2,190,373 £2,272,062 £2,339,676 £2,403,136

Other Income

Sport & Health Centre £129,797 £132,392 £135,040 £137,741 £140,496

Sports Hall £24,925 £25,424 £25,932 £26,451 £26,980


Football Centre £50,699 £51,712 £52,747 £53,625 £54,519

Sub-Total £225,086 £229,588 £234,180 £238,687 £243,282

TOTAL INCOME £2,322,114 £2,419,961 £2,506,242 £2,578,362 £2,646,418

EXPENDITURE Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Staffing


Sports Hall £163,195 £166,458 £171,452 £176,596 £182,777


Football Centre £172,606 £176,058 £179,579 £183,170 £186,834

Sub-Total £988,616 £1,008,388 £1,030,220 £1,052,539 £1,076,239

Other Costs (Summary by Facility)


Sports Hall £260,615 £265,685 £270,964 £276,460 £282,183


Football Centre £228,996 £234,983 £240,134 £245,485 £251,039

Sub-Total £1,229,232 £1,259,492 £1,279,430 £1,300,326 £1,321,918

TOTAL EXPENDITURE £2,217,847 £2,267,880 £2,309,650 £2,352,865 £2,398,157


Sports Hall -£136,120 -£135,007 -£136,723 -£138,395 -£143,352

Indoor Cricket Centre -£137,434 -£136,674 -£136,673 -£138,110 -£140,012

Football Centre -£85,222 -£82,914 -£80,794 -£81,661 -£84,088

OPERATIONAL SURPLUS / DEFICIT £104,267 £152,081 £196,592 £225,497 £248,261


Sports Hall £106,800 £106,800 £106,800 £106,800 £106,800


Football Centre £86,640 £86,640 £86,640 £86,640 £86,640

Lifecycle Costs / Sinking Fund £430,653 £430,653 £430,653 £430,653 £430,653


Sports Hall -£242,920 -£241,807 -£243,523 -£245,195 -£250,152

Indoor Cricket Centre -£197,171 -£196,411 -£196,410 -£197,847 -£199,750

Football Centre -£171,862 -£169,554 -£167,434 -£168,301 -£170,728

OVERALL SURPLUS / DEFICIT -£326,387 -£278,572 -£234,062 -£205,156 -£182,392

Sport & Health Centre 259,593 265,567 269,942 272,606 274,738

Sports Hall 103,856 105,670 106,823 107,304 107,795

Indoor Cricket Centre 65,553 66,906 68,078 69,058 69,837

Football Centre 134,794 137,490 140,240 142,343 143,767

ANNUAL THROUGHPUT 563,796 575,632 585,082 591,311 596,137

OPERATIONAL SURPLUS / DEFICIT

Lifecycle Costs / Sinking Fund

OVERALL SURPLUS / DEFICIT

ANNUAL THROUGHPUT


23

In terms of dedicated jobs created at the new centre this is taken from the detailed business plan and illustrated in the table below. Table 5: Jobs Created

In addition there will be a further 30 jobs created as a consequence of the development, attributable but not exclusive to the centre hence not featuring in the operational business plan e.g. grounds maintenance, contract cleaning etc, totaling over 100 new jobs.

3.1 Capital and Revenue Commentary Capital costs of the land and build of the sports village will be of the order of £40 million. This considerable investment is necessary to deliver high quality regional centres ready and able to host on-going significant regional events for both spectators and participants. A capital shortfall currently exists which will be the subject of on-going discussions with all interested bodies. For its part Renewal will contribute the land cost and a significant element of the build cost. Details will be confirmed as the development goes forward of other funders but the table overleaf highlights the significant potential to deliver. The table below gives a flavour of the potential funding options to deliver the Surrey Canal scheme. These are clearly dependent on funding programmes at the time. What is evident is that funding picture for sport is in a state of flux. Local authority finances are stretched and major funding programmes such as Building Schools for the Future (BSF) and Development Agency pots of funding are no longer available however there is grounds for optimism with sport largely protected in the short-term after the recent Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). The type of public private partnership, which is central to Surrey Canal is in-line with community sports hub principles as set out in Sport England’s Developing Community Sports Facilities. The strategic needs case is clear and set out and the base business plan has been developed to reflect a ‘positive investment cycle’, as illustrated below. As the detailed business plan evolves the opportunities for cross-subsidy on the site to support either capital and revenue will be factored in.

Casual

Activity/Coaching

Staff

Full-Time Part-Time Part-Time

Sports Village Management 2 0 0 2 £81,615

Sport & Health Centre 4 5 20 29 £378,679

Sports Hall 3 4 5 12 £163,195

Indoor Cricket Centre 3 1 12 16 £192,522

Football Centre 3 4 10 17 £172,606

TOTALS 15 14 47 76 £988,616

Staff investment includes

salary, on-costs and

training investment

Management StaffTotal No Notes

Total Staffing

Investment


24

Recent government announcements about sport structures have also had positive messages about sports facilities and the government appears to understand that even in the current financial climate the need to invest in sports facilities will not go away. Already Lottery funding has been re-focused on the original good causes, meaning potentially more money for sport and the Places People Play: London 2012 mass participation legacy plan, which is committed to developing a number of iconic multi-sport facilities has significant potential. Sport England encouraged Renewal to make a bid to this capital fund and an application was submitted in December 2010. NGB money is protected and whilst these are only small pots potential exists to bid for capital monies up to 2013 from NGB sources to support Surrey Canal. Using assets innovatively will also be a key feature of the next few years. The government is seeking to ease red tape and encourage local communities to realise assets to deliver community benefits. This is likely to see the sale of surplus land and sites for housing and commercial uses, with receipts being released to fund prioritised community assets, which could include sports provision, and could form part of Lewisham’s wider Regeneration Strategy and a mechanism to contribute. Local community trusts and commercial sponsorship is also likely to become a more common feature and local funding solution, in line with the ‘Big Society’ and local communities working together in partnership to support one another and deliver local community priorities. The Loul Deng Foundation is significant in this respect. The above provides an overview of the future funding landscape and whilst it is changing there are significant opportunities to access funding to the Surrey Canal scheme. Depending on the final solution and capital it is likely that a combination of sources will help to deliver the necessary capital and these will be explored and finding bids made at the next phase of development. Table below provides a summary of the capital funding opportunities. Table 6 : Potential Funding Sources

FUNDING SOURCE KEY ISSUES

Sport England Lottery Fund

Through Lottery Fund and Exchequer funding Sport England likely to continue to prioritise facility investment

Funding priorities will need to be considered as they are launched by Sport England; previous priorities have included rural areas for example

Increased Lottery funding going forward

Potential for additional monies to sports facilities under October announcements; may be part of Lottery but could be additional

Places People Play: London 2012 mass participation legacy

£135 million Places initiative as part of Olympic Legacy programme

Fund specially focussed on supporting a number of iconic multi-sport facilities

Surrey Canal potential Olympic Legacy project

Potential for circa £1.5m; Renewal being encouraged to bid by Sport England


25

FUNDING SOURCE KEY ISSUES

NGB Capital Programmes

Devolved funding through the whole sport plan programme has resulted in the NGBs with small capital pots circa £2-£3m to 2013 to support projects which meet their strategic priorities

Potential for Surrey Canal to benefit in line with NGB priorities set out

Kent CC capital funding

Public Grant-aid / Local Authority Funding

Potential capital funding via Lewisham Council / Southwark Council

More likely as part of wider Regeneration and sale of Assets

GLA and LDA funding as part of Olympic Legacy

Local Funding Trusts

Will increase in importance and potential in line with ‘Big Society’

Luel Deng Foundation keen to support the scheme and will be subject to further discussions

Commercial Sponsorship

Local businesses will be increasingly encouraged to work in partnership and support local community projects

Cross-subsidy into sport for either capital or revenue from rentals and ground leases

Naming rights potential

Financing Packages

Depending on the final business plan and management option opportunity exists to fund capital on the back of future revenue projections

Operator contributions to the commercial elements of the scheme

3.2 Conclusions and Next Steps

We believe the business case presents a sound basis on which to move forward. The needs and

evidence is clear and the facility mix is grounded in local and Pan-London needs and priorities. The

operational and business planning and procurement strategy will to continue to evolve as the scheme

progresses and the Trust structures will begin to form.

It is envisaged the next stage of development will be to establish a Surrey Canal steering group to

develop the detailed business case and implement the management and funding strategy, which has


26

already commenced due to our application for Iconic Facilities Funding as part of the Places People Play:

London 2012 mass participation legacy programme.

Needs and Evidence Base for Sport, April 2010

Surrey Canal: London‟s Sporting Village Needs and Evidence Base for Sport

Commissioned by

Produced by


Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction and Methodology

Chapter 2 Strategic Context

Chapter 3 Sport and Leisure in Lewisham

Chapter 4 Needs Analysis

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Next Steps

Chapter 6 Appendices 6.1 Summary of BSF sports facility 6.2 NGB pro-forma


1. Introduction and Methodology

1.1 Background

In November 2009 Neil Allen Associates (NAA) was commissioned by Renewal to examine the needs and demands for sport Surrey Canal. Surrey Canal is at the north western edge of Lewisham, at the boundary with Southwark and is the closest part of the Borough to Central London. The vast majority of the site is owned by the property company Renewal and the London Borough of Lewisham.

1.2 Context

Lewisham is undergoing significant change. The emerging Lewisham Local Development Framework (LDF) sets out the vision, objectives, strategy and policies that will guide development and regeneration in Lewisham over the next 15 years. Surrey Canal is identified within the Core Strategy as an area for major regeneration. Renewal is leading the development of the site in partnership with Lewisham Council and local stakeholders. What has emerged from discussions to date is the potential to develop part of the site for community and new sporting facilities.

1.2.1 In order to shape the potential sporting elements of the regeneration scheme NAA were

appointed to work with Renewal and Lewisham Council to develop the needs and evidence base for sport to form part of the overall outline planning application and site masterplan.

1.2.2 The overall aim of this report is therefore to:

Identify sports facilities project(s) which can be a landmark development in the Surrey Canal Development area, based on need and viability

Identify sporting projects which have a status with the London wide and local sporting community, leading National Governing Bodies (NGBs) of Sport, local authorities and potential commercial developers.

The report sets out the work in progress and emerging priorities to input into the overall

masterplan for the regeneration of the Site. Working up the detail of the emerging projects in partnership with Lewisham Council and the relevant national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) will take place as the master plan progresses. The anticipated way forward is set out in the final section.

1.3 Methodology 1.3.1 The methodology for the work was developed in partnership with Renewal, Lewisham Council

and Sport England. It was evident at the early stage of the work that Lewisham Council were keen to ensure that any proposed developments were in line with the emerging strategic context and priorities as set out in the Council‟s Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17) study and emerging Sports Plan. We have used these key strategic documents to set the context, shape the work and identify the emerging priorities for the site. It was also agreed that due to the location of the SC site and pan London transport links, the focus of any development should be seen to „add value‟ to the current Lewisham offer and deliver sub-regional London wide needs. In this context the needs analysis work has focussed on consultation with NGBs.

1.3.2 The outcomes to date have been shared with the Sports Team at Lewisham Council who have expressed support for the emerging priorities. These have been developed in outline as


part of the site masterplan with the commitment to work up the detail of the proposals over the next period of development.

1.3.3 For further information or clarification on any of the points in this report, please contact Neil Allen, NAA, on 07917 378083 or [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2. Strategic Context

2.1 Introduction

In order to understand the context for the development of sport and leisure facilities on the Surrey Canal (SC) site it is critical to examine the strategic priorities of the London Borough of Lewisham and key partner agencies who will have an interest and influence in any facility development and to understand how the future facility infrastructure can help to support strategic priorities.

2.1.1 Lewisham Strategic Partnership

Shaping our Future is Lewisham‟s Sustainable Community Strategy. It covers the period 2008-2020 and sets out the vision for Lewisham and the priority outcomes that organisations, communities and individuals can work towards to make the vision a reality. Shaping our future‟s vision for the borough is:

‘Together we will make Lewisham the best place in London to live, work and learn’

2.1.2 Lewisham has identified the following priorities for the area to achieve this vision:

Ambitious and Achieving: education, training and celebrating local achievements

Safer: reducing crime, anti-social behaviour and abuse

Empowered and Responsible: supporting local communities and diversity through empowered community organisations and volunteering

Clean, Green and Liveable: improving the environment, including housing, waste collection, street cleaning, parks and open spaces

Healthy, Active and Enjoyable: improving health, promoting active lifestyles and support for people with long term health conditions to maintain independence

Dynamic and Prosperous: to improve town centre and local areas; access to jobs; and access to sustainable public transport

2.2 Lewisham Council

The six priority outcomes set out in shaping our future define the work of the Council and partners. The Council‟s ten corporate priorities set out in the Corporate Strategy 2008-2011 specify the Council‟s own distinct contribution to the delivery of these outcomes.

2.2.1 Active, healthy citizens is a key priority – where the Council are committed to ensuring that people can actively participate in maintaining and improving their health and well-being, supported by high quality health and care services, leisure, culture and recreational activities.

2.2.3 The table below highlights the current participation profile across Lewisham based on Active People (AP) data and illustrates that participation across the Borough has reduced in the last AP survey (AP3) in December 2009 and is now in line with the average across the Sports Partnership (CSP) area, but below the national averages. Further analysis of the data reveals the following:


Sport England KPI 1 (participation i.e. % of the population taking part in 30 minutes of exercise three or more times a week) is 18.5% for Lewisham, below the national average of 21.6%

Sport England KPI 2 (volunteering) is 3.6% for Lewisham, below the national average of 4.7%

Sport England KPI 3 (club membership) is 21.9% for Lewisham, below the national average of 24.1%

Sport England KPI 4 (tuition) is 18.2% for Lewisham, above the national average of 17.5%

Sport England KPI 5 (organised competition) is 12.4% for Lewisham, below the national average of 14.4%

Sport England KPI 6 (satisfaction) is 56.9% for Lewisham, below the national average of 68.4% but a statistically significant increase on the previous 12 months

From this analysis it is evident that there is a clear need across the borough to increase levels of regular participation and provide enhanced opportunities for volunteering, coaching and organised sport amongst the adult population in line with regional and national averages. This is recognised as a key priority for the Borough. Improved facility provision has a key role to play in supporting the delivery of improved performance and therefore driving the health agenda of the authority.

APS1 APS2 APS3 (CSP)

3 x 30 sport - At least 3 sessions x 30 minutes, moderate intensity sport per week (all adults)

16.4 % 14.8 % -

KPI 1 - At least 3 days x 30 minutes, moderate intensity participation (sport and recreational walking and cycling) per week (all adults)

20.3 % 20.6 % 18.5% (18.5%)

KPI 2 - At least 1 hour of volunteering to support sport per week (all adults)

3.2 % 3.1 % 3.6% (3.6%)

KPI 3 - Member of a sports club (all adults) 24.0 % 23.8 % 21.9% (21.2%)

KPI 4 - Received sports tuition or coaching (all adults) 17.1 % 14.8 % 18.2% (15.7%)

KPI 5 - Taken part in organised competitive sport (all adults)

11.9 % 11.4 % 12.4% (11.7%)

KPI 6 - Satisfaction with local sports provision (all adults)

59.9 % 49.4 % 56.9% (66.0%)

NI8 - At least 3 days x 30 minutes, moderate intensity participation (sport and recreational walking and cycling and for those aged 65 years and over - yoga; pilates; indoor and outdoor bowls; archery and croquet) per week (all adults)

20.3 % 20.8 % -

http://www.webreport.se/apd/4/rt1_kpi_scorecard.aspx?l=100&e=344#qid_26



















2.2.4 Participation is clearly an issue across the borough, which is linked to health and deprivation indices. The 2005 national survey Understanding Participation in Sport, published by Sport England, identified poor quality facilities as a limiting factor in participation. The provision of facilities therefore has a key role to play. Providing better and more accessible facilities can play and important role in driving increased participation. If the authority is to deliver on its health agenda the future development of facility assets have a crucial role to play in order to make participation more socially equitable across the Borough.

2.2.5 Certainly in terms of quality factors there would appear to be concerns. The data in the table below highlights low satisfaction levels with the current facility stock and sports provision across Lewisham, equally significant is the priority placed on residents to improve provision and see investment in sports facilities across Lewisham. In short there is clearly a need to increase levels of satisfaction with sports facility provision in Lewisham to provide a positive experience of sport.

2.2.6 There would appear therefore to be a clear issue in terms of the perception of quality and satisfaction with the current sport and leisure infra-structure, which in turn is likely to impact on participation and health issues. The development of high quality needs led facilities is therefore a critical strategic priority for the area if the authority is to achieve its priorities. The Council‟s draft Leisure Plan (see below) highlighted particular priorities in terms of targeting interventions. The Sports Plan notes, the Borough is placed in the bottom quartile nationally for five of the six Sport England Active People KPIs and below the London average on all KPIs. Broadly in line with national and regional trends, rates of participation in Lewisham are generally lower amongst the following groups, and these should be the key target groups for Lewisham:

Women

Older people

Black and minority ethnic groups (BME)

Disabled people

People on low income

2.2.7 It will therefore be important to understand the needs of these groups in the context of SC.

It is recognised that the Council are committed to improving and developing the facility infra-structure across the borough and new investment is going into schemes at Wavelengths, Loampit Vale Leisure Centre and Forest Hill pools. This is in addition to Downham Health and Leisure Centre, which was opened in 2007 and the potential investment into sport and leisure

Lewisham

KPI 6 – Satisfaction with local sports provision (AP3) 56.9%

(66% CSP)

Very or fairly satisfied with sport and leisure facilities (2008 Place Survey)

32.6% (46.5% London)

Percentage of residents who identify sports & leisure facilities as something most in need of improvement?

27.6% (top 5% quartile)




through the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. It will be critical to ensure that any developments on the SC are developed to compliment this investment from the Council. To ensure this is achieved it is important to understand the wider policy context, which is set out in the next sections.

2.3 Planning Policy Context The LDF „Core Strategy Options Report‟ describes the Council‟s objectives for SC in seeking major regeneration as:

Making best use of the available land

Attracting further investment to the area

Increasing contribution made to the vitality and viability of the local economy through increased jobs and economic spend

Providing a „sense of place‟ through new buildings and contributions to an enhanced street environment which would raise the overall standard design and environmental quality

Improving the permeability and accessibility of the area

Delivering a radical improvement in the physical quality of the urban environment and address severance issues

Altering the relationship between Deptford New Cross and the River Thames by improved connectivity to the River and increasing visual and physical links

These themes are developed further in the Lewisham Regeneration Strategy 2008 – 2020

„People, Prosperity, Place.‟

2.3.1 Regeneration Policy Context People, Prosperity, Place - Lewisham Regeneration Strategy 2008-2020 sets out the regeneration contribution to achieving the Sustainable Community Strategy vision set out earlier. To deliver the vision for Lewisham, twelve objectives have been agreed under the three themes of People, Prosperity and Place.

2.3.2 Under the people theme healthy communities is a key action area and the strategy sets out the significant investment in leisure projects to tackle the issue of health inequalities. These include Wavelengths, Loampit Vale Leisure Centre, Forest Hill Pools, Bellingham Recreation Centre and Downham Health and Leisure Centre. The Council investment is significant however it is evident that the majority of this investment is in the south of the borough. Consultation with the Council has revealed that movement between the South and North of the borough for sport is limited, meaning new and improved provision in the north will also be important. The SC site has significant potential in this regard. The nearest facility to the SC site is Wavelengths but this too is outside the 20 minute walk catchment according to Active Places analysis (accessibility standard set in the PPG17 study; see later) of the SC site. The need for investment in the north of the borough to serve the areas of low sports participation and deliver healthy communities in the far north of the borough is therefore evident.

2.4 Sport Context

2.4.1 Sport England Sport England‟s overarching aim is to build the foundations of sporting success through the creation of ‘A world leading community sport system in England.’

The strategy is based on the delivery of three key outcomes which, when combined, will form the basis of a world-leading community sport system.


2.4.2 Excel Approximately 25% of Sport England‟s investment will focus on developing and accelerating talent. The outcome will be well-defined, appropriate talent support systems for each sport being funded, resulting in more talented performers moving on to elite programmes and success. Precise targets regarding the size and/or quality of talent pools will be agreed with each sport. NGBs will have the majority of responsibility and will particularly focus on ensuring the right level of coaching provision is being delivered at appropriate levels.

2.4.3 Sustain Approximately 60% of Sport England‟s investment will focus on sustaining current participants in sport by ensuring that people have a high quality experience and by taking action to reduce the drop-off in sports participation between 16 and 18. A further outcome will be to increase sports participants‟ satisfaction with the quality of their experience.

2.4.4 Grow Approximately 15% of Sport England‟s investment will be focused on increasing regular participation in sport by 200,000 adults per annum (1m in total by 2012-13). In addition, Sport England will contribute to the goal we share with the Youth Sport Trust of helping more young people access five hours of sport a week. A key outcome will be increasing participation in NGB-accredited clubs to a third of all 5-16 year-olds by 2010.

2.4.5 In summary, Sport England is committed to delivering:

1m people doing more sport by 2012-13.

A reduction in post-16 drop-off in at least five sports by 25% by 2012-13.

A quantifiable increase in satisfaction (actual measure to be determined5).

Improved talent development systems in at least 25 sports.

A major contribution to the delivery of the five hour sport offer engaging more 5-19 year olds in sport.

2.4.6 Developing quality facilities, which meet increasing levels of satisfaction amongst residents and in turn encourage people to participate in sport will be critical. These priorities are in line with Lewisham‟s aspirations and should count as key drivers in the realisation of this strategy. The NGB role is also significant and this has helped to shape the consultation and this needs analysis work.

2.4.7 Pro-Active East Pro-Active East London are the Sports Partnership for the Lewisham area; representing Sport England and NGBs at a local level, there is a 10 year framework for sport and physical activity in East London up until 2016, which aims to widen access to sport and physical activity, improve health and wellbeing, develop sporting pathways, enhance education and skills, and strengthen organisations and partnerships. The partnership have a close working relationship with Sport England and consultation with Jo Aitken revealed the key focus for defining sport specific needs for the area should be through discussions with Sport England and the NGBs.

2.4.8 Lewisham Sport Strategic Context Lewisham‟s Leisure and Open Space Study (PPG17 study) was finalised in January 2010 and sets the context for surpluses and deficiencies in sport and recreation provision across the borough. The vision for the Leisure and Open Space across the borough is „to protect, enhance and cherish open space for the benefit of local people, the wider community and for future generations.‟ The study looks across typologies, including indoor sport provision in terms of indoor sport provision the following quantity standards have been set:


0.29 badminton courts per 1,000 population

10.91m sq of swimming pool water space per 1,000 population

3.97 health and fitness stations per 1,000 population

0.03 indoor tennis courts per 1,000 population

2.4.9 In terms of accessibility the provision standard has been set at a 20 minute walk-time to indoor sports provision. The policy priorities for indoor sport set out in the study are for sports halls, where there is a recognized undersupply, which is exacerbated by schools not opening up their facilities and indoor tennis where potential for an 8-court facility is identified. Swimming Pool provision as a result of the proposed developments is not identified as a priority.

2.4.10 The issue of sports hall provision has been identified in previous studies the Lewisham Council School Sport Strategy, which was developed to support the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme identified a shortage in sports hall space across the borough.

2.4.11 The Lewisham Draft Sports Plan sets out a vision for ‘to increase opportunities to participate in sport at all levels and for all ages.’ The Plan sets out 6 priority areas as follows:

Facility development

Club development

Workforce development

Sport in education

Sporting opportunities for all

Talent pathways

2.4.12 In terms of facility development the Plan recognises the issue of sports hall deficiencies and the opportunities to develop specialist provision around tennis and gymnastics. The role of BSF is also highlighted as a potential means to deliver.

2.4.13 The authority has established a series of focus sports as follows:

2.4.14 The proposed Priority Sports are:

Football

Cricket

Swimming

Basketball

Gymnastics

Athletics

Netball

The proposed Development Sports are;

Tennis


Table Tennis

Cycling

Hockey

Judo

Rugby Union

The Council are keen to ensure a facility infra-structure to deliver against the focus sports and these will therefore be important considerations in defining needs and opportunities for the SC site.

2.4.15 The development of talent pathways highlights facility access as a key barrier to talent development and the delivery of Lewisham Sporting Talent Strategy (2009-13) „Together Everyone Achieves More.‟

2.4.16 The Council have been keen to stress throughout this process the critical importance of developments at SC falling in line with the authorities context and key priorities. It is therefore evident that the focus of any development at SC should be around indoor hall sport to meet the demographic needs of Lewisham (all ages) and the focus sport priorities (all levels). It will also be critical to ensure developments are in line with PPG17 standards.

2.4.17 Southwark Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2008-13 adopts seven strategy themes including:

Using physical activity for both the prevention and management of ill-health

Maximising the use of planning policy in providing for sport and physical activity

Providing a network of appropriate places and spaces for sport and physical activity

Improving access and choice for the whole population

Building and maintaining an effective multi-agency delivery system for sport and physical activity

Maximising the use of London 2012 to promote physical activity

Maximising the impact of all resources

2.4.18 In terms of facility development there is also a clear recognition of the deficiency in sports halls.

2.4.19 Demographic Analysis Before analysing the sport and leisure facility provision and needs across Lewisham it is essential to understand the geographic location, population and deprivation of this area of the Borough. Some of the key trends impacting on Lewisham include:

Lewisham is the third largest inner London borough in terms of both population and area. By 2016 the population is expected to increase to circa 282,000

The 2001 census revealed there are more than 27,000 people aged 65 and over in the borough and 16% of households contain a person with a physical disability

In 2001 21% of the boroughs population was under 16, the second largest child population of all inner London Borough‟s, this is expected to rise further by 2016


Lewisham is ethnically diverse with 140 languages spoken and 43% of the population are from BME groups

Lewisham is among the most deprived local authority areas in England, placed in the worst 20%. New Cross the site of SC is one of the wards with the highest concentration of deprivation

2.5 Summary

It is evident that the priority on tackling health inequalities is a key driver across Lewisham. The role of sport and physical activity as an important contributor to this agenda is recognised and in turn developing high quality sports facilities is an important part of the equation. At present levels of participation in Lewisham are low and this corresponds with satisfaction with sports provision. The Council are taking significant action to address this through investment in their leisure stock however this is focussed in the south of the borough and outside the local catchment of the SC site. There therefore appears potential for further developments at SC however it is clear that this must be in line with priorities and local needs.

2.5.1 Despite the investment there is a clear and recognised shortfall in sports hall space and a desire to develop facility provision further to meet focus sport priorities and develop talent pathways.

2.5.2 The key strategic priorities and demographic analysis provide the context for looking at future provision options at the Surrey Canal site and any changes must deliver the Council‟s policy priorities and meet the needs of residents and deliver to the demographic make-up of the Borough.

2.5.3 The next section will consider how current facilities and programmes operate across Lewisham and the wider sub-region in order to make sense of the strategic, demographic and policy context and help to define a vision for Surrey Canal and future site options.


3. Sport and Leisure in Lewisham

3.1 Introduction

This section seeks to look objectively at sport and leisure provision in Lewisham and Southwark both from an activity and facility perspective. The analysis uses the national data sources developed by Sport England, which help to provide an objective and robust assessment, along with local data and intelligence. The data sets have been developed using a significant research base and alongside local research provide a powerful guide to supply and demand issues and the needs analysis set out in section 4. If the Council is committed to the corporate objectives set out in section 2, particularly around the health agenda, it is essential (as set out) that a future facility infra-structure is developed, which meets the participation needs of residents and the wider sub-regional aspirations.

The sports sector is now rich in terms of data sources to support local authorities and groups in their decision making, enabling objective decisions to be made. The data sources analysed in this section include Active People, Market Segmentation and Active Places.

3.2 Participation Analysis

The tables from the previous section sets out the key data from the Sport England Active People Survey. Understanding it in more detail however helps to reveal that the area around the SC site (marked with the red ) is bordered by areas of low participation (white shaded areas) in both Lewisham and across the border in Southwark. The role of new high quality provision in addressing low participation is therefore an important priority.

3.2.1 As part of Active People already provides participation at a local authority level but in recognition that local authority areas are not homogenous and that there will be variation within a local authority, it was decided to model participation down to smaller areas. The smallest geography which the Active People survey can accurately measure participation in sport and active recreation is at local authority level. Below this geography, the number of responses is too small to produce reliable figures. One solution to this is the production of synthetic estimates at smaller geographies. Estimates of the 3x30 participation measure have therefore been produced for all Middle Layer Super Output Areas (MSOA).

3.2.2 The synthetic estimates methodology was pioneered by the ONS and the Department of Health. It is based on the principle that measurements like quality of health, unemployment or sports participation are partially a result of other variables such as ethnicity, social grade, employment status and educational attainment. Many of these variables are available at smaller geographic areas (mainly because they come from administrative sources rather than surveys). Therefore it is possible to produce a model which uses these variables to calculate estimates of key survey indicators. This was the method used to produce the 3x30 estimates.

3.2.3 The strength of the small area estimates is that they provide a stronger evidence base for prioritisation or categorisation within a Local Authority. The map for Lewisham is set out overleaf showing the SC site.


3.2.4 Analysis of market segmentation data provides a further insight into participation. From the map overleaf it is evident that the dominant segments around the SC site are Tim, Kev and Elsie.

12.7% of the adult population in Lewisham have characteristics relating to segment 9 (Kev) – Pub League teammates. This is significantly above the national average. Pub League Males have a tendency to participate in includes football, darts , karate, snooker, weight training, fishing, tenpin bowling and cricket

Segment 19 (retirement home singles) is also a segment in Southwark (bordering on SC) significantly above the national norm. The sports that segment 19 have a tendency to participate in include walking, dance, bowls, low impact exercises

There are also significant number of segment 6 – settling down males. The sports that segment 6 have a tendency to participate in canoeing, skiing, cricket, golf, cycling, squash and football

The preponderance of cricket as a key sport is interesting in terms of the market segmentation analysis.


3.3 Facility Analysis

Given the priorities identified through the consultation and strategic review the analysis has focused on the assessment of the supply and demand for sports halls in the Lewisham and Southwark areas and the wider East and Central London Partnership areas. These are the areas where developments at SC can „add value‟ and align best with the Council‟s key priorities. The next sections analyse these needs in more detail.

3.3.1 Looking at PPG17 study and applying the local standards to the SC site reveals the following. Within a 20-minute walk time of the SC site (accessibility standard for indoor sport), which is marked by the blue cross, there is a population of 46,554. The map below illustrates that in terms of indoor hall provision there are only 3 facilities within 20 minutes walk time access to the site the Millwall Community Centre, Deptford Green School and New Cross Sports Arena, which are marked by the green triangles.


Map and Table 1: Map and Distribution of Sports Halls (all providers) in 20 minute walk of SC site

3.3.2 Applying the quantity standard (0.29 courts per 1,000 population) to the SC catchment area

reveals the need for 13.5 courts. The Millwall Community centre whilst and indoor space is a specialist facility for football. According to Active Places Deptford Green has 3 courts and New Cross 1 court, although the accessibility to both is limited. The only BSF development within the SC catchment will see the potential development of a new 4-court hall at Deptford Green, which will increase supply in the area by one court, although the access arrangements are likely to be limited. Applying the Council‟s standards to the SC catchment reveals a significant shortfall in indoor hall space both now and in the future.

3.3.3 To analyse the sports hall issue further we have used the Facilities Planning Model (FPM). The analysis set out is based on 2009 findings and drawn from work undertaken by Sport England. This indentifies the location and capacity of each sports hall in the area and then compares this supply with the demand for sports halls by the resident population, based on where they live and applying the rate and frequency of sports participation in hall sports by both sexes and for 5 age bands.

3.3.4 This supply and demand assessment then identifies if there is either unmet demand for sports halls, or, over supply (spare capacity) and in either instance, the scale and location of this unmet demand or over supply. The findings for the Lewisham borough are set out in the map below and in summary terms what this map is showing is the following:

Facility Count by travel time

Postcode: SE163LN

Facility Type: Sports Hall

Facility Sub Type: Main

Mode of Travel: By Walk

Symbol Range (Minute(s))

0 - 10

10.1 - 20

20.1 - 30

30.1 - 45

45.1 - 60


3.3.5 In 2009 there is an aggregated unmet demand across Lewisham for between 7 and 15

badminton courts. Unmet demand for sports halls is highest in the north and west side of the borough, at the SC it is 15 badminton courts. In the south of the borough unmet demand is lowest at 7 badminton courts. The average across the borough is for 12 badminton courts.

To the west of the SC site and extending into Southwark unmet demand for sports halls is higher at around 17 badminton courts

3.3.6 There are other findings which can be extracted from the Sport England 2009 supply and

demand for sports halls analysis which relate directly to Lewisham and provide a context for


SC and future provision. The findings for Southwark are also set out below. In terms of Lewisham the findings are:

Lewisham has a reasonable supply of the standard size sports halls of 4 badminton courts and across the Borough there are 9 sports hall SITES and a total of 14 main (4 badminton court size or bigger) sports halls with ancillary halls. A standard size sports hall is 4 badminton court size allows use for the full range of hall sports up to a community participation level of activity and local level competitions. A sports hall of this size will have a catchment area of around 2-3 miles and participants in this size catchment area will provide around 80% of the regular use, depending on the precise programming.

Looking at the total supply of sports halls – across all providers public, commercial and voluntary there are 32 sports hall SITES. The distribution of sports hall sizes are: 15 sports halls of 1 badminton court size; 4 sites of 2 badminton courts; 4 sites of 3 badminton courts; and 9 sites of 4 badminton courts size sports hall. A full description of all the sports halls in Lewisham is set out in the Appendix.

It would appear there are no sports halls in Lewisham which are bigger than 4 badminton courts and the predominant provision is in fact a 1 badminton court size sports hall with 15 sites

The Lewisham finding suggests that the main type of provision is community size sports halls and the 8 or 12 size sports hall which allows for competition and more flexible use of the space for a number of sports at the same time is a significant gap in the market.

The total capacity of these sports halls In Lewisham is 7,000 visits per week in the weekly peak period. However the total demand for sports halls by the Lewisham population is 13,500 visits. So total demand exceeds total supply by around 6,500 visits – for recreational level hall sports activities.

Lewisham has 1.8 badminton courts per 1,000 population and this is the second lowest figure for any of the boroughs in Pro Active East. This is however well in excess of the provision standard of 0.29 badminton courts per 1,000 population as set in Lewisham‟s own Leisure and Open Space Study (Known as the PPG 17 study). So whilst the current provision is in excess of the standard set by Lewisham, when compared with the standard of the other boroughs in the Pro Active East Partnership it is the second lowest. (Barking and Dagenham has the lowest at 0.3 sports halls per 1,000 population and Bexley has the highest at 4.4 badminton courts per 1,000 population) The average for the Partnership is 2.8 badminton courts per 1,000 population.

The average occupancy of the Lewisham sports halls (how full the sports halls are) is around 83% of the total time available. This is not surprising given the estimated unmet demand for sports halls and is in effect saying that the sports halls across Lewisham are full

3.3.7 In terms of relating this facility information on sports halls to the Lewisham population, then this illustrates an increasing demand for sports halls. The reason being the predominant age group for participation in indoor hall sports is in the 15- 34 age group. The profile of the Lewisham population is such that the “average age of the Lewisham population is 34.7 years, this is young for London. Children and young people (0 – 19years) make up 25% of the population, whereas elderly residents (over 75 years) make up just 5% of the population”. (Source Lewisham Sports Strategy).

3.3.8 This means the predominant age group 0 -19 years which is some 25% of the Lewisham population is the predominate age group for indoor hall sports participation. This population/participation profile combined with the estimated current shortfall in indoor sports halls space provides all round evidence for the focus on new facility development to be on increasing the supply of sports halls


3.3.9 In terms of reviewing the local supply and demand for sports halls and its distribution across Lewisham this can be illustrated by the following map showing the location and number of sports halls by ward. This is then followed by the ward listing of supply and demand for sports halls. As the list shows in only 7 of the 19 wards is the supply of sports hall space greater than demand. Of the 7 wards where this exists the majority are in the south, south east and centre of the borough – Perry Vale, Sydenham, Telegraph Hill and Rushey Green.

Map and Table 2: Map and Distribution of Sports Halls (all providers) in Lewisham Borough

No Ward Capacity Demand Balance % of demand met

1 Bellingham Ward 0 662 -662 0 %

2 Blackheath Ward 0 676 -676 0 %

3 Brockley Ward 0 727 -727 0 %

4 Catford South Ward 0 676 -676 0 %

5 Crofton Park Ward 0 705 -705 0 %

6 Downham Ward 660 675 -15 97.78 %

7 Evelyn Ward 0 742 -742 0 %

8 Forest Hill Ward 0 704 -704 0 %

9 Grove Park Ward 0 670 -670 0 %

Symbol Range Ward Count

0 - 26.178 (11)

52.357 - 78.534 (3)

78.535 - 104.712

(2)

104.713 - 130.89

(2)


10 Ladywell Ward 680 643 37 105.75 %

11 Lee Green Ward 0 600 -600 0 %

12 Lewisham Central Ward

0 686 -686 0 %

13 New Cross Ward 495 792 -297 62.5 %

14 Perry Vale Ward 945 722 223 130.89 %

15 Rushey Green Ward 495 674 -179 73.44 %

16 Sydenham Ward 532.5 750 -217 71 %

17 Telegraph Hill Ward 607.5 751 -143 80.89 %

18 Whitefoot Ward 0 633 -633 0 %

3.3.10 The implications of the analysis of the Sport England Supply and Demand Assessment for sports halls for SC is that there is a very high level of unmet demand for sports halls at the recreational level of activity across Lewisham and this is highest in the area of the SC site. This accords with the strategic review and application of the authorities own standards, as illustrated above.

3.3.11 The main scale of sports halls in Lewisham is very small with the predominate scale being 1 badminton court. There are 9 sites which are the standard size sports hall of 4 badminton courts. There is no provision of the larger 6 to 8 badminton courts or even bigger size competition sports hall. Depending on the needs and evidence gained from National Governing Bodies of Sports – across all hall sports – there may well be a need for a large scale sports halls for a number of sports to use concurrently and which could also be a temporary small scale events venue. The unmet demand for sports hall findings are based on the existing Lewisham population profile in the SC area and across the borough and applying the rates and frequency of sports participation to the existing population. Which is a young population and the predominate age group in Lewisham is 0 -19 years of age – some 25% of the Lewisham population. Given the regeneration objectives of SC if the age and economic profile of the SC area changes with a younger population and higher socio economic groups then the rate and frequency of sports participation for indoor sports will increase as it is highest in the 16 -34 age group for social groups is A – C, thereby generating even higher demand.

3.3.12 Next is the same analysis of the supply and demand for sports halls for Southwark. The map illustrating the unmet demand for sports halls in Southwark is set out below.


In terms of the analysis for sports halls the findings are:


There is an aggregated unmet demand for sports halls of between 14 and 18 badminton courts with again this being greatest in the north of the borough. The average across the borough is 14 badminton courts.

Southwark has 17 sports hall SITES with 20 actual sports halls.

The total capacity of the Southwark sports halls is 12,300 visits per week, whilst the total demand is 14,300 visits. So Southwark has a better supply and demand balance compared with Lewisham.

Southwark has 2.9 sports halls per 1,000 population compared with 1.8 in Lewisham and a Partnership average of 2.8, so Southwark is right on the Partnership average.

The average occupancy (how full the sports halls are) is around 79% in Southwark, compared with 83% in Lewisham.

3.3.13 Again, and as for Lewisham, in terms of reviewing the spots halls distribution across Southwark this can be illustrated by the following map showing the location and number of sports halls by ward. This is then followed by the ward listing of supply and demand for sports halls. As the map key shows Southwark‟ sports halls provision is best in the NE area of the borough in the Bermondsey area. However the ward listing and supply and demand balance for sports halls (set out below the map) shows that 12 of the 21 wards have no sports halls, whilst 9 have a supply greater than demand.

Map and Table 3: Map and Distribution of Sports Halls (all providers) in Southwark Borough

No Ward Capacity Demand Balance % of demand met

1 Brunswick Park Ward 0 572 -572 0 %

2 Camberwell Green Ward 0 648 -648 0 %

3 Cathedrals Ward 1980 693 1287 285.71 %

4 Chaucer Ward 0 711 -711 0 %

5 College Ward 2650 499 2151 531.06 %

6 East Dulwich Ward 0 561 -561 0 %

Symbol Range Ward Count

0 - 106.212 (14)

106.213 - 212.424 (4)

212.425 - 318.636 (2)

424.849 - 531.06 (1)


7 East Walworth Ward 0 608 -608 0 %

8 Faraday Ward 0 638 -638 0 %

9 Grange Ward 0 630 -630 0 %

10 Livesey Ward 0 593 -593 0 %

11 Newington Ward 0 646 -646 0 %

12 Nunhead Ward 0 506 -506 0 %

13 Peckham Rye Ward 760 571 189 133.1 %

14 Peckham Ward 0 575 -575 0 %

15 Riverside Ward 500 577 -77 86.66 %

16 Rotherhithe Ward 0 599 -599 0 %

17 South Bermondsey Ward 710 588 122 120.75 %

18 South Camberwell Ward 532.5 593 -60 89.8 %

19 Surrey Docks Ward 1395 643 752 216.95 %

20 The Lane Ward 810 598 212 135.45 %

21 Village Ward 825 498 327 165.66 %

3.3.14 In terms of the SC the implications of the findings from Southwark are that the borough has a better supply and demand balance for sports halls than Lewisham but there is still a high unmet demand for around 17 badminton courts. So based on the Sport England analysis the Southwark findings support the need for a major sports hall at the SC location to meet the existing local resident unmet demand for sports halls in 2009. Combined with the Lewisham analysis and findings the scale of the unmet demand supports the provision of a major size sports hall - for recreational sports hall use by local participants.

These overall finding now need to be assessed against the views of the NGBs and their local clubs on the need and scale for sports hall provision in the SC area to meet the strategic priorities set out in terms of focus sports and talent pathways.

3.4 Other Sports Facility Provision Needs and Opportunities

Building Schools for the Future (BSF) The BSF programme is very well advanced in Lewisham and there are 8 secondary school sites included in the programme. There is indoor sports hall provision proposed at each secondary school location and this ranges in scale from 2 badminton courts to 4 badminton courts. The size of the 4 badminton court size centre is based on the Sport England dimensions of 33 metres x 17 metres. The full sports facility analysis in BSF schools is set out in Appendix 1. So these size Community use access and agreements have yet to be developed at the BSF schools and so the level of community use is at present unknown. LBC is looking to simplify and unify its leisure/sports facility management contract and this may include the management of the BSF sports facilities. There are no community access agreements in place for any of the BSF projects and this has to be negotiated so the impact on sports hall deficiencies across the borough is likely to be limited. Furthermore as set out earlier developments (apart from Deptford Green) are outside the SC catchment.

3.4.1 The Crystal Palace National Sports Centre (CPNSC) opened in 1967 has reached the end of its working life. There have been many proposals since the 1980‟s to re-develop both the indoor sports centre and the athletics stadium. None of the plans have progressed and in 2005 ownership of the CPNSC and more importantly the whole of the Crystal Palace Park passed from the London Borough of Bromley to the London Development Agency. In


October 2005 the LDA published its masterplan Framework for the whole of the Crystal Palace Park. This included 5 elements, one of which is a sports and events park.

3.4.2 Since 2005 until 2009 the LDA has tried to progress its masterplan but progress has been very protracted because of the land, conservation and heritage designations across the Park and the muti-interest/lobby groups, partner organisations and statutory consulteees, for example English Heritage who engage rigorously on any proposed re-development. An outline planning application was submitted by the LDA to Bromley Council in 2008 and was called in by the Greater London Authority.

This has all led to the Crystal Palace Park Planning Inquiry, held between May – September 2009 which has examined in detail the LDA masterplan and responses form all interested organisations (over 15) and statutory bodies. A decision on the outcome of the Planning Inquiry is anticipated in the summer of 2010.

In terms of the sports and events park element, the masterplan proposals are to retain the grade 2 listed indoor sports centre and swimming pool building. This will be re-developed into a South London wide centre for ball sports, in particular football, with the emphasis on low cost operating and maintenance requirements. The proposal is to develop 3 indoor five a side football pitches, each up to 60m x 30m. The swimming pool will not be retained. This proposal has been opposed by Sport England but is supported by English Heritage and local community groups. The 5 boroughs bordering the park are equivocal about the concept, content and need. The athletics stadium subject to the Olympic stadium becoming the new National Athletics stadium, will have the stands demolished and become a local community track with one stand for 2-3,000 people

The proposed re-development of CPNSC is going to be a long term project and should it not go ahead – for reasons of the Inspector not supporting the LDA masterplan, or funding the development costs, then does SC offer an alternative venue. The best opportunity is for indoor athletics as the current (very poor condition) sprint track will not be replaced. England Athletics have a need in SE London for an indoor sprint training track (see details in NGB response) and there is an established and strong SE London athletics club base. The main component of the proposed new Crystal Palace the indoor football is being assessed on its own merits for the SC location and need independently of Crystal Palace.

The more interesting aspect of Crystal Palace is what will be lost in the redevelopment. In particular a training venue for both boxing and weightlifting at London wide level. Also and more importantly a venue for national league basketball events with 500- 1,000 seats and (in the past) volleyball. These possibilities to re-locate these facility requirements to SC are assessed in the NGB4 consultations.

3.4.3 The London 2012 Olympics Stadium, post the Games, will be converted from a 90,000 athletics stadium into a 25,000 athletics stadium. It will retain the 8 lane and 10 lane track home straight track and track/filed area specification for world level events as well as the warm up athletics track. There are no other scheduled sports facilities to be retained in the stadium in legacy mode. Should the stadium not be developed as the new national athletics stadium but become the new home ground venue for West Ham United FC, as is being publicized, then the need will be for a new National Athletics stadium and the only realistic opportunity is for this to be a completely re-developed 25,000 seat stadium at Crystal Palace.

It is likely that any re-negotiation to allow West Ham to become the owners/users of the Olympic Stadium that a pre-condition will be that the football club funds the re-development of Crystal Palace as the new National Athletics stadium. In short the legacy uses of the Olympic Stadium are decisions that have yet to be made. There is limited (very) sports facility provision in the stadium post Games and the London Sports academy is the main provision. The best approach for SC is simply to keep a watching brief on the eventual decision on the Olympic stadium post Games and if it is football then the scope, need and opportunity to pick up any „facility fallout‟ can be considered in the context of the development stage for SC at that point.


3.4.4 London Sports Academy post the Games it is proposed that the Olympic Stadium will host the London Sports Academy. The Academy is, in effect, the National Skills Council organisational centre for management of National Vocational Qualifications in sports arena management. It is being hosted/re-located to the Olympic Stadium post the Games because the philosophy of the National Skills Council is to locate its qualification management in a venue appropriate to the subject matter. For example Wembley Stadium hosts the management of NVQ‟s in stewarding of sports facilities.

The requirement for the London Sports Academy is 300 – 400 sq metres of office accommodation and 2-3 lecture theatres of between 200 – 300 people. So it is not a large office development and the title is somewhat grandiose. It is understood that the National Skills Council is very keen to re-locate this particular NVQ management to the Olympic Stadium and this is more about status and profile than about office accommodation need or location (currently this work is located in an office block off Tottenham Court Road and not in a sports venue at all).

In discussions with the Olympic Legacy Company who are responsible for the this aspect of the after use for the stadium, is was made clear that regardless of the main use of the stadium post the Games the London Sports Academy is seen as integral to the use of the building. However should there be new owners/operators of the stadium such as West Ham FC then their overall needs may preclude the London Sports Academy being re-located.

3.4.5 David Beckham Academy Located in North Greenwich has two full-sized indoor football pitches with third generation artificial grass opened in 2005 with a 5 year lease of the site and planning permission. The lease expires in 2010. The lightweight structure is owned by AEG, who also own and operate the neighbouring O2 centre. The focus of the centre has been to provide organised football coaching courses for young children, talent development and local league programmes. The centre employed its own coaching staff (under AEG) and did not appear to be linked into established and local football development programmes developed by the FA locally and the local authority. It was almost stand alone. The centre closed in December 2009 and the reasons given for the closure were that the lease had expired (no details about whether there were any issues about re-newing the lease) and the original concept was always to set up a coaching programme around the country for skills and coaching development and not retain one central location. However the site and building is listed as an indoor 2012 London Olympic Pre –Games Training Venue for football. In discussions with Greenwich Council they were not able to provide any definitive reasons as to why AEG had decided to close the centre and not retain it with a new lease and planning permission through to the London Olympics in 2012 and its use as a pre games training venue. The unsubstantiated thinking is that the centre was uneconomic and after the initial interest and not retained the level of interest in coach programmes and the centre was operating as a popular centre for local football leagues, especially after school leagues and early evenings. It retained its popularity for these activities. There is no financial information about the centre‟s operation and so it is not possible to review the economic performance of the centre. The fact the centre did not integrate into local football development programmes meant in effect it was stand alone and whilst Greenwich Council did not view it as „opposition‟ they did not have any involvement with it either.

3.4.6 Since writing the report it was announced on 5th April 2010 that AEG had made an

arrangement (no details) for the Football Nights Foundation (charity arm of a sports promotion company - no details) to operate the centre from 23

rd June, to host football themed events

and under anew name of the London Soccerdome. There will be no change to the facilities at the centre – two full size artificial grass football pitches.

The focus of the football activities at the centre will be corporate tournaments and with a coaching programme for children. However the centre will not now employ football coaches direct but will bring in coaches for specific costed coaching programmes. The venue will remain as per this programme up to 2012 when it will be used as a pre games training venue


for gymnastics (not football as originally designated). At this stage there are no further details of the operating and leasing arrangements between AEG and the Football Nights Foundation

3.4.7 Pro Active Partnerships The proactive partnerships for East London (which includes Lewisham) and the pro active partnership for Central London (which includes Southwark) lead a nomadic life in terms of short term office lets at different local authorities and lack a permanent base. There would be the opportunity to provide office accommodation for either or both of these partnerships at SC. Again this would develop the sporting critical mass at SC. Each Partnership currently employs around 12- 15 people.

3.5 Summary

The summary of the London wide sports facilities and opportunities therefore reveals for CPNSC it is going to be a long term project and its status, funding and all agency agreement to one project all seems very problematic. Plus there is the outcome of the Planning Inquiry and Inspector‟s decision to determine first.

3.5.1 SC offers an alternative venue to CPNSC for certain aspects – not the whole project. The best opportunity is for indoor athletics as the current (very poor condition) sprint track will not be replaced. England Athletics have a need in SE London for an indoor sprint training track (see details in NGB response) and there is an established and strong SE London athletics club base. The main component of the proposed new Crystal Palace the indoor football is being assessed on its own merits for the SC location and need independently of Crystal Palace.

The other and more interesting aspect of Crystal Palace is what will be lost in the redevelopment. In particular a training venue for both boxing and weightlifting at London wide level. Also and more importantly a venue for national league basketball events with 500 - 1,000 seats and (in the past) volleyball. Again these possibilities to re-locate these facility requirements to SC are assessed in the NGB consultations.

3.5.2 In terms of the London Olympics Stadium post the Games the legacy use of the Stadium are decisions yet to be made. There is limited (very) sports facility provision in the stadium post Games and the London Sports academy is the main provision. The best approach for SC is simply to keep a watching brief on the eventual decision about the Olympic stadium post Games and if it is football then the scope, need and opportunity to pick up any „facility fallout‟ can be considered in the context of the development stage for SC at that point.

3.5.3 The London Sports Academy is the National Skills Council organisational centre for management of National Vocational Qualifications in sports arena management. It is seen as integral part of the Olympic stadium post the Games but only requires 300 - 400 sq metres of office accommodation. However should there be new owners/operators of the stadium such as West Ham FC then this may preclude the London Sports Academy and provide an opportunity for SC to be considered as an alternative location. At present the Academy‟s future is inextricably linked to the bigger and first fundamental decision about which sports use the Stadium will be post the Games. This alongside potential to house Pro-Active Sport could be critical elements in delivering the employment objectives for the site.


4. Needs Analysis

4.1 Introduction

The previous section set out the context for the needs analysis work, the focus on indoor sport, the need to recognise the demographic characteristics and priorities for sport, focus sport considerations and NGB priorities.

4.1.1 The review of existing facility strategies by National Governing Bodies of Sport, revealed a paucity of actual strategies. Of the sports that are of interest to SC only cricket and basketball have a published strategy. Cricket‟s was published in 2000, which sets out their facility requirements at national, regional and local levels. Whilst Basketball‟s has just been updated to cover 2009 – 2013. For all the other sports, Sport England confirmed each sport is in the process of developing its own sport specific strategy as a part of its 2009 -2012 Whole Sport Plan work. However there are no imminent facility strategies which will be produced / published.

Given this position the approach was therefore taken to send each NGB a pro-forma to try and establish the needs and evidence base for facility development in the SC area. The pro-forma itself is set out in Appendix 2. The other purposes of the questionnaire were to establish the relationship between the NGB and local clubs in the Lewisham/Southwark areas.

4.1.2 To try and identify what is the scale of club development how many clubs, location, levels of activity and requirements for indoor facilities which could build on local club development and meet a defined need. Also establish the club sport relationship/work by Lewisham and Southwark Councils and the East and Central ProActive Partnerships. Also to establish if there are any existing projects which provide a model for SC and if so why. Finally to establish if there are compatible sports which could have dedicated or even shared space but they have a common facility requirement and therefore provide critical mass for one facility but which serves several sports, for example an indoor hall sports facility for basketball, volleyball and badminton.

The key findings from the questionnaire and consultations which each NGB are for set out in the sport by sport table below.

4.2 Consultation

In addition consultation have taken place with national agencies and Government including Sport England, DCMS Government Olympic Executive, Olympic Legacy Company, London Development Agency and the Greater London Authority, In addition Business in Sport and Leisure to obtain views on trends in sports facility commercial development, the Mayor‟s legacy plan, the Crystal Palace re-development project and the facility legacy from the 2012 London Olympics. These findings are reported in the text above under other sports facilities developments or summarised in the following consultation table overleaf.

Consultee Key Issues Raised Opportunities for Surrey Canal Triangle

Sport England National Governing Body team for facilities.

Which NGB‟s have facility strategies – confirmed only cricket. Others are working on

Possible indoor facility for ball sports – combination of basketball, volleyball, netball and softball/baseball (all have indoor London leagues). Possible events



Andy Couves, Sport England National Team

Rosie Benson, Sport England National Team

them. None likely soon

Other needs and evidence base on facilities from NGB‟s varies and need to contact both National and London NGB facility people.

SE will focus on getting NGB on use of needs and evidence for facility needs not opportunity/aspiration based.

venue for some sports.

Sport England National Programmes and London Region.

Charles Johnson

Stuart Makepeace

Overview on NGB needs across London and opportunities for projects which have an evidence base but which are not progressing elsewhere, e.g. Beckham Academy and Crystal Palace re-development

Overview on Olympic legacy projects which could locate to SCT.

Testing out views on existing projects e.g. Telford College which can be replicated/modelled at SCT

Main opportunity is if the Olympic Stadium does convert to a football stadium post Games. This means the current legacy content of the stadium could be displaced. Main opportunity would be re-location of the London Sports Academy (details in the report text)

Crystal Palace re-development awaiting outcome of the 2009 Planning Inquiry, decision expected Summer 2010. If project gets the go ahead then still need to secure capital funding (extensive public sector funding required) and for commercial development. Whole project is problematic and protracted in funding, project management.

Needs based opportunity to re-locate some of the CP content to SCT. Main possibility/need for a major indoor sports hall and use as a London wide basketball events centre. Details of content in project report.

The exciting indoor athletics sprint straight and the boxing training ring will NOT be part of CP re-development. So possible continuing need/re-location to SCT, based on NGB/local views on need

Telford college project content, scale and NGB involvement/use provides example to learn from and apply at SCT.

Sport England

Jon Couves, Sustainable Community Projects

Views on similar and comparable projects to ones emerging at SCT. In particular the type of multi-use indoor sports facilities being considered under Sport England‟s Sustainable Projects Programme.

Potential to review multi use/sports indoor sports centre projects – which SE considers sustainable. Lessons learnt type experience which can be adapted for SCT. Potentially 2 projects which SE may support.

Government Olympic Executive Views on Olympic Legacy facility projects not being committed/progressed and

Same view as Sport England, hinges on Olympic Stadium legacy use. Timescale for decision not



Jonathan Branson

opportunities for re-location of London wide projects to relocate to SCT

established but not soon. If football then need to find a home for London Sports Academy. Government will want to progress any fallout project quickly

Business in Sport and Leisure

Andy Sutch, CEO

Views on commercial sports provision trends and developments.

Views on GLA/Mayor‟s Olympic Legacy Plan – timing, content and focus

Development opportunities

Limited - GLA/Mayor Legacy plan focus will be on sports development and increasing physical activity for lifestyle reasons. Very limited sports facilities content

Potential for Beckham Academy type project for indoor football. Beckham Academy project had viability but lacked support/short term lease issues.

Greenwich Council

Paul Martindill, Olympics Legacy Development

Views on needs of indoor football centres and the Beckham Academy

Views on Olympic Legacy projects in South London (he represents London borough on 2012 legacy projects work)

Would appear that very large football dedicated (surface and programming) indoor projects have problems with long term viability. Seems coaching development programmes have limited numbers and no progression mainly around school holiday/after school coaching skills programmes. The recreational recreational five a side centres (outdoors) appear to be more appealing to participants than playing indoors in a very large dome type venue.

Very limited information on the details of the Beckham Academy project available.

Olympic Park Legacy Company

Greg Smith, Programmes and Project development

Establish content of Olympic stadium post Games and potential “fall out”

Establish facility legacy projects in Olympic Park which have needs assessment and potential re-location/replication

Limited for SCT because confirmation that stadium is athletics – post Games. Only fallout should this change is for London Sports Academy but this is office space 300 -400 sq metres for National Skills Academy not sports facilities.

Games times venues and permanent facilities not scheduled to change post Games

Millwall Community Scheme

Dave King

What are the development plans for the Millwall Community Scheme(MCS) in the future

Which sports is MCS catering for and which are the growth sports

How does MCS operate in sports development terms and how does it work with the local authorities

What are the current barriers

MCS operates as MCS club based sports. In effect any sport it works with is badged as MCS. Main sport is football and which accounts for 70% - 75% of the occupancy of the centre. Their other main sports (in priority of use) are basketball, netball, table tennis judo/martial arts and touch rugby. Biggest growth sport is basketball and there are requests to develop it more. Size of the sports hall restricts the centre for league play.

Sports development is the main focus of MCS but integral to that is also using sport to engage young



to further development of MCS people and develop personal skills – increasingly important. MCS does outreach work in local schools and this has to be funded as MCS does not have core funding.

MCS has around 15 full time staff and around 40 -60 sports development/voluntary coaching development staff. The full time staff are ALL programme funded and so there is constant turn over of staff as programmes changes. MCS cannot fund its own full time permanent staff. So the source/objectives/timescales of specific programme funding influences very much what MCS does and whish sports it works with.

MCS delivers around 50 -60% of Lewisham‟s disability sport work programmes.

2 local schools use the centre for curriculum PE. More schools use the centre if they get funding for the sport programmes. Distance/travel to the centre is not an issue – it is the funding to be able to pay for programmes that restricts schools use.

MCS receives some core funding for its development work and the programming/timetabling is directed by fiunding available. Would like to do more social inclusion but reliant on funding. Football programmes do generate main income.

Main barrier to development is funding and the size of the sports facility. The sport shall only allows for one main activity to be programmed and the peak weekday early evenings/mid evenings they could schedule 203 different sports.

Very interested to work with SCT and develop on a complimentary way. Would see football as still being their main activity but keen to work in partnership with SCT because of their local knowledge/existing MCS club badging/sports they have introduced.

Way forward is to work with MCS on an open basis about facility and sports development. Lewisham provides the link because it is funding/supporting MCS development work and would want to see that protected and



enhanced.

National Governing Bodies of Sport

Tennis

Sophie Curthoys

Mark Fisher

Cricket

Tim Nicholls

Jamie Cliffford

Athletics

Bob Smith

Peter Sutcliffe

Elspeth Turner

Netball

Fran Billings

Boxing

Claire O‟Hara

Table Tennis

Richard Yule

Badminton

Jonathan Lee

Paul Bickerton

Gymnastics

John Ransley

Basketball

Pete Griffiths

Roger Moreland

Judo

Steve Fraser (no response received)

Weightlifting

Sam Jamieson (no response received)

Softball/Baseball

Questionnaire sent to all NGB‟s on:

Existing sports facility strategy and statement of needs for London wide/South London/local facilities

NGB need for a project – scale, rationale and evidence base and requirements

Links with existing clubs – which, size and how any project at SCT would develop existing club sport

Existing club development work with Pro Active East and Central. What work and how would any project at SCT enhance/develop

As above but for those sports which are development priority sports with Lewisham and Southwark Council‟s

Potential NGB use – how much and at what level

Comparable projects would could be replicated/modified at SCT

Which are the other complementary sports which share same facility needs and examples of joint projects.

NGB Responses for each sport set out in the following table.

No response received form volleyball, judo, weight lifting or softball. Sports which did not respond were approached 3 times by e mail and several phone calls.

Possible that weight lifting may still reply and of interest at SCT because of very real potential displacement from Crystal Palace.



John Boyd

4.2.1 Sport by Sport Analysis

See table below.

Sport Key Facility Issues Key Sporting Issues Consultation Strategic Priorities Needs and Opportunities

Tennis No published facility strategy but emerging strategy for completion in March 2010

No existing indoor provision in Lewisham or Southwark

very little tennis activity in Lewisham

no clubs affiliated to LTA

no organised/formal tennis development programmes in Lewisham

Greenwich and Southwark do have tennis development programmes and coach education programmes.

key focus sport for Lewisham

Lewisham keen to develop tennis

LTA very keen to develop in Lewisham – recognise the need (have done for ages to bring tennis to inner city locations

LTA identifies Lewisham/Greenwich/Southwark area as a priority (no details – strategy awaited)

LTA has asked Southwark/Lewisham/Greenwich to work on a tennis development strategy – early stages.

LTA say need is for a local level centre – 6 indoor courts.

LTA would use any centre for coach education programmes, talent ID programmes and local level competitions. LTA use likely to be only around 5- 10% of total court time for a 6 court centre.

Emerging LTA Facility strategy (March 2010) identifies a need for a 6 court local scale centre in Lewisham/Greenwich/Southwark areas.

Greenwich and Southwark have higher existing levels of tennis activity with established development programmes. Lewisham does not. Therefore the other boroughs have a sports development advantage in the development of the possibly indoor centre.

Cricket National Facilities Strategy 2000

Strategy has 5 levels and SCT is within 2 levels (1) the District level “to ensure a network of accredited development centres is established to service the facility requirements of district squads – coaching and

No existing indoor provision in the area

Around 15 established cricket clubs in Lewisham, Croydon and Bromley Boroughs. Good club structure but outdoor pitch quality/ownership and short leases hindering development.

Club

Kent CC identified need for an indoor centre to serve the SE London Boroughs

Strategy does not identify scale of indoor facility required for club/district levels

ECB view is the need is for a 4 lane indoor centre to serve SE London boroughs/clubs.

Kent CC does not have any designated cricket venue in SE London and regards it as top priority for development. Has to use Tonbridge and Judd schools



competition” (2) club cricket “to encourage every ECB affiliated club to obtain access to quality indoor and outdoor cricket facilities

Limited need for ancillary facilities – just changing/storage/booking. Venue is for activity.

Limited opportunity to share venue/compatible with other sports because long and narrow building and floor surface is concrete and most indoor hall sports require sprung timber floor

owning/leasing clubs in the area are: 6 clubs in Greenwich; 4 clubs in Bexley, 8 clubs in Bromley.

Total participation based on clubs is 6,800 and club members number 3,900 players.

as nearest.

KCC would use an SCT venue for ECB/KCC indoor cricket competition venue. Open cricket courses for local schools/clubs. Under 11‟s to under 17‟s (six groupings) for county development and district trials – same age groups.

Ned to be almost „stand alone‟ facility because of scale/shape of the building and floor surface of concrete – not compatible with other sports.

Existing „model‟ indoor centres at District/Club levels are at Truro FE College and Exeter University. Both 4 lane centres and capital build cost around £2.5m (2007 prices). Part Lottery. What made them happen was an established organisation looking to expand its sporting facilities. NO anchor tenant as such at SCT to drive the project.

Indoor centre at the Oval is over booked and cannot meet demand. Large usage seems to be informal use „teams decide to book a net‟ plus clubs block book winter sessions ” . Suggests there is a wider demand than the organised/structured club use identified by ECB.



Day time use by schools not provided but potential

Athletics

Facilities strategy in draft for England Athletics (EA).

Crystal Palace only indoor provision in SE London and will not be retained in re-development of CP

Clubs are strong and big in SE London. 5 clubs in the Kent/London Athletics network. Kent Athletic club (at Ladywell) 250 members. Blackheath and Bromley 1,000 members – second biggest in London. Bexley Athletic club 250 members. Then 2 road running clubs of around 200 members Beckenham and Cambridge Harriers (Sutcliffe Park G‟wich)

EA facilities lead person and Club Development person both said greatest need is for indoor facilities. Need and evidence base/club nos and catchment identified. No existing provision is limiting winter training and creating barrier for under 15‟s development.

Existing clubs focused on established members and to male dominated

ProActive East (Gabby Powell) producing an Athletics development framework document (no details)

EA identified need for 4 indoor training centres across London, three are in place. EA gives each centre the status of a sub regional centre

SE is the only area without an indoor centre and greatest need – based on lack of facilities and club strength . Existing centres are: Lea Valley (N), Newham (E) Brunel University (W) and Sutton (S)

Sub regional indoor athletics facility to serve SE London and 5 established athletic clubs. Clubs are big total membership over 2,000 members within a 5-10 mile catchment of SCT.

To provide coaching/ winter training venue and broaden base of club athletics p‟ton. Provide both a winter training venue and summer sprints training and strength/conditioning.

Sub regional facility is:

1. an indoor 100m (with run off of 15 metres) sprint track with 6 lanes. 2. Throws area with netting (discuss and shot) 3. Jumps area (triple and long) as part of the width of the building (2 extra lanes alongside main 6 lane straight) 4. Strength and conditioning area (which can be accommodated in width of the building alongside straights area)

Netball No published facilities strategy. Doing work now and hope to publish by December 2010.

Trying to work with other indoor hall sports - basketball and

P‟ton increasing based on higher pe activity in schools, sport becoming more fashionable/image changing because of TV coverage and presentation of the sport

With Fran Botting – National Facilities Officer and Anna Maundrell London Region Manager

Lewisham Netball Development Group is working with LBC/England

London is the area with highest netball participation and therefore targeted for facility/sports development

Looking for a London events

Similar concept projects to SC for netball are proposed at Redbridge (Borough Council is the project sponser). Plymouth Life Centre (City Council leading)



volleyball - to establish joint needs assessment and facility specification.

Lewisham currently has 1 basketball court size facilities – this scale is hindering netball development of leagues and competitions.

General lack of indoor facilities which have quality sprung timber floors and sports hall length for run off.

Netball clubs struggle to get regular bookings/lets – squeezed out by other sports wiling to pay higher prices

England Netball Whole Sport Plan identifies London as the priority region for development

People want to play indoors.

Scope to broaden age range of players (veterans leagues as in rugby/cricket) if indoor facility with changing/secure environment.

netball and local netball clubs/schools on a development programme. So an established network in Lewisham and it is an LBC priority sport for development

venue as existing events venues/arenas to big and expensive. They played Australia (22

nd Feb) in O2

arena so potential is big.

Have TV contract with Channel 4 and so looking for an events venue to “host” TV coverage. London works best for Channel 4 and netball in terms of coverage/profile spectators/access.

and Telford College (Telford FE College leading). All projects at advanced planning/funding stage (might be able to get plans/layouts but SCT scale is larger)

England Netball initial thinking on SCT is for a regional netball centre designation but focus initially on community/county standard – but real scope to expand beyond this level with regional league, spotlight events and regional tournaments.

Boxing ABAE has no facility strategy – recognises the need to do one.

Crystal Palace has a dedicated (poor quality) boxing ring, weights/training conditioning facility. Boxing not part of CP re-development plans

Seen as a „problem solving‟ sport and stereo typed around inner city projects to change lifestyle/create self esteem for young males

Increasing popularity and participation in boxing.

ABAE objective to support clubs in getting better dedicated boxing facilities – around a club base. Projects seem to be opportunity based or if a local authority wants to develop a project – not strategic approach.

Projects are club based and managed

Do not have strategic priorities but ABAE wants to do a facilities strategy

Opportunity to re-locate and replace the existing Crystal Palace facility at SCT. Would need dedicated space and set up for ring and weights/training conditioning area. Could double up with weight lifting for free weights.

Tradition and history of boxing in this area of London. NGB appears to be responsive to clubs.

Table Facilities strategy Profile of the sport is rising/increasing

NGB want to build to build on the

Not established and TT does not

Big opportunity IF Table tennis is a



Tennis just started.

Technical guidance on table tennis projects in place

Very limited table tennis owned/managed facilities – dependent on local authority sports centres – problems of securing long term lets

activity in London in 2010.

Huge tt in the parks London programme with concrete tables/tournaments throughout summer of 2010.

TT big school participant sport – especially in inner city schools but lack of club links and club base to develop the sport – so talent/interest not developed.

London profile for the sport. Best comparable London project is in Bethnal Green

NGB if it gets a London facility opportunity would commit to NGB programme – to establish a London base. Would use for coach education, and as designated London performance venue – so to create critical mass with local club use

have the “pulling power” of big sports to set its own priorities.

priority for Lewisham and established school base/high participation.

Opportunity to build on that at SCT. Would add critical mass to the indoor sports needs. If dedicated space/time for table tennis then NGB would commit to help develop/and designate/use the venue for NGB use.

Really is local needs to be established and then add y NGB and on the basis of adding critical mass at SCT

Basketball

England Basketball Facilities Strategy 2009 – 2013.

Identifies a need to develop a Performance Basketball centre in London but several projects are vying for this venue/designation. Most likely is Arena 3 at Olympic park (handball arena for games)

Issue of developing dedicated basketball venues – depends on a project sponsor who wants to develop basketball dedicated facilities and there is basketball critical mass to make it happen/viable. Examples of 5-6

A sport which is very much an urban location sport where there is a young and ethnically diverse population. Very much fits the Lewisham and Southwark population profiles.

Basketball is a (possibly the) key development sport in Lewisham. Club and sport growth on the back of establishing the Forest Hill club with Steve Bucknall as coach/manager. Now big growth/interest in the sport.

Pete Griffiths – National Facilities Development

NGB looking to develop/designate a performance centre in London. NGB will commit its own development programmes to this centre

Nee for both a performance and some community club basketball centres in London. Performance centre has 3 basketball courts, seating for 500 -1,000 spectators, 40-50 hours peak time basketball use. Provides for regional level competition, and coaching/talent id resource centre.

Current examples include Amaechi Basketball Centre Manchester and Jesse Wildcats Arena Nottingham

Community Club Centre is 1-2 basketball

Very interested in pursuing Arena 3 (handball events venue) at the Olympic Park as their London performance centre. However this is a dedicated 6,000 seat arena and after use will be determined by viability and long term business case. So scope for SCT if this is not progressed.

Keen to consider SCT as a community club centre – but scope to add on to and develop further. EB is pursuing several projects in SE London and all at early stages. Greenwich Academy project and Lillian Bayliss school in Lambeth as potential community



venues in England where this happens.

Otherwise Basketball is part of mixed indoor hall sport use sharing with netball and other indoor hall sports. Issue then of all competing for dedicated court time at peak hours.

Standard Sport England 1 basketball court of 28m x 17 is too small for run offs and perimeter space for basketball league play. Also BSF school indoor sports halls need to be defined and funded at scale to met NGB and community use. Still examples of BSF using education specifications (smaller) for sports halls.

Only one sports hall in LBC which is bigger than 1 basketball court size and BSF is mainly providing this size of sports hall. Community use agreements need to be established for these sports halls.

courts, no spectator numbers, 10 -25 peak hours basketball usage. Looking to link with BSF projects and based on existing club network

Current examples include Hoops Basketball Centre Barrow and Noel Baker School Derby.

centres. SCT would have to develop first to eliminate these other projects.

Lewisham very keen to develop basketball and problem is compounded by only one sports hall venue bigger than 1 basketball court. BSF will not improve things as no school has a bigger sports hall than one court and community use access/agreement yet to be agreed. So a 3 basketball court centre at SCT allows development of the sport and provides an event venue. Currently league play is outside the borough

Badminton

No existing facility strategy but approach is to identify potential areas for facility development – based on sports participation/club base nad potential projects.

Same facility issue as other sports getting dedicated

Increasing participation but not really breaking into new areas

Sport puts dedicated resource on working with a few projects based on development potential.

Sport has developed the community

Jonathan Lee National Facilities Manager and Paul Bickerton London Development Manager. Both emphasised developing projects base don known level of badminton activity and linking that to potential projects, most recent are

EB has identified six potential projects in London, Lewisham is not one of them but would want to work on a project in SE London.

Currently working on project in

SCT/Lewisham Is not top priority location for EB but does see and wants to develop in SE London. Currently committed to Crown Woods school in Greenwich but at an early stage and potential for other projects in addition to



time/access at peak times. Also getting long term club lets/bookings.

Very dependent on local authority venues

badminton network project. Very much development based and facility need/scale results from the participation level

around BSF and dedicated badminton centres. Once potential established EB puts in considerable resource to develop the project and programme of use.

Greenwich at Crown Woods school as a community badminton network. School is a BSF project and potential to have an 8 badminton court size centre.

Also University of East London and a 12 – 16 badminton court size centre in Newham

Greenwich.

EB likes to do dedicated development work on any project and has limited resources to work on several projects in London at once. Likely that SCT has to make the running and then sports is likely to be persuaded of viability/commitment.

Gymnastics

Does not have a facility strategy

Gymnastics at activity above recreational does need dedicated facility for fixed equipment and at the tope level for pitted areas. So provision focuses on recreational where the need is for a big matted area with movable equipment

Has larger than most sports storage requirement- especially trampolines.

As focuses on very young age participants it can book venues at times which are not the r the peak hours of other sports, early evenings, weekend days/mornings

Is a development priority sport for Lewisham and has provided a dedicated gymnastics centre at Ladywell Sports Centre. Nothing in the north of the borough

John Ransley facilities Manger for BAGA

Need is for a facility in the north of the borough – possible focus on trampolining (view of NGB).

SCT likely to be able to provide a big space for recreational level activity and provide more critical mass around other key sports which are the drivers. Compatible with other sports and advantage of peak times different from the indoor hall sports.

4.2.2 The analysis reveals the following in terms of needs and opportunities for the SC site:

There is a priority to deliver indoor hall space across Lewisham and in the SC catchment, which is particularly deficient

The form of any indoor hall development should deliver against Council priorities in terms of demographics and focus sport priorities


In terms of tennis Southwark and Greenwich appear better placed to deliver (although the SC site given its location should not be dismissed)

Cricket presents a better fit for Lewisham in terms of priority sports, market segmentation and demographics (delivering to young people and BME needs)

Basketball and netball also play well to local sport priorities and demographics

Athletics and office developments will be dependent on the delivery / or not of other significant projects

Flexibility to accommodate table tennis and gymnastics should also be considered

4.3 Needs Analysis

Based on the consultation, strategic priorities, demographics, participation, facility infra-structure, supply and demand, consultation and sport by sport analysis the key emerging needs are therefore:

Indoor Hall Sports venue for combination of ball sports: particular requirement for netball and basketball and for an events venue. Both sports are used to working together on shared venues and have recently combined on a 2 basketball court venue at Telford College. Lack of events venues in London as London is the Region with greatest sports development need and potential for participation growth. Opportunity to develop the project around these sports as critical mass and both have a high profile, sports development focus in both Lewisham and Southwark. Basketball is possibly the key development sport for Lewisham in terms of attraction to young males, it profiles the Lewisham young male population and the development of the Forrest Hill club has massively promoted the sport. Lewisham has a complete lack of basketball size sport halls above 1 basketball court. Basketball with netball provides the driver/critical mass to bring together local sport development and NGB need in a re-generation project. Opportunity to build onto the critical mass by inclusion of volleyball. Baseball/softball is another potential need and user. They have an indoor London league (around 20 clubs – small but growing) and have limited access to venues so this could add to critical sporting mass. Possibly more importantly include sports which have a stated need in Lewisham for big sports hall space and the key development sports here are table tennis who need a dedicated venue for continuity and to provide a club base (for 12 table) but not dedicated space. Plus gymnastics and especially trampoline so a recreational level facility for gymnastics but higher level development for trampoline.

Indoor cricket centre: a sport specific dedicated venue for cricket development which fits the ECG club level requirement for facility development of a 4- 6 lane indoor venue. Kent CC very keen too establish a base in this area of London and for a programme of cricket development for KCC and local SE London clubs (details in sports consultation table). Also real opportunity to develop indoor 6 a side cricket club league venue for South London.

Indoor athletics training venue: a sport specific venue for a minimum 60 and ideally up to 110 metre sprint straight and dedicated jumps and throws areas for long and triple jump and shot and discuss. England Athletics would dedicate this as the Regional Training Centre for South London. This would then complete the London network for indoor athletics‟ facilities. {Programme of NGB and local Lewisham/South East London club use set out under the NGB consultation). Priority sport for Lewisham meets the participation/population profile for the borough of very young population and focus on young female sports development. Well established club but with no indoor facilities at Ladywell.


Set out below is how these priorities could be delivered in terms of facility form.

4.3.1 Indoor Hall Sports venue for a combination of Ball Sports A three basketball indoor sports facility which could also be an events arena for National and London League Basketball and Netball. Requires a central show court (middle of the three courts) with spectator seating for 500 – 1,000 plus ancillaries. Basketball and Netball have TV contracts for their national league programme – not extensive but profile is building. Existing venues are combination of too big/too expensive/booked out too far in advance (scale of netball growth is that they played Australia in April 2010 in the 02 arena – this is a one off but shows the level of spectator/commercial interest). Basketball and Netball have London as their top priority locations for event arena – as described - but also and more importantly London is their top priority and need for more indoor and dedicated sports hall space for development. Both sports are priority sports for Lewisham and basketball is a rising sport for them with Forest Hill sports centre/club and appointment of former England player as coach.

Lewisham has good supply of sports halls but at 1 basketball court size or smaller, so bigger sports halls are needed for sports development/co–location of sports/multi use of sports use at the same time/flexibility in programming etc – there is also a local case for this scale of provision when applying the Council standards.

4.3.2 Indoor Cricket Centre ECB have identified a need in their facility strategy or indoor cricket centres to serve district and local club cricket level of facility/club development. ECB has identified local South London need for a 4 lane indoor centre. A cricket venue is sport dedicated as it requires a concrete floor whereas other ball sports need sprung timber floor.

The ECB role seems to be set out need and then develop project by others. Kent CC has identified their dedicated need for County squads/talent id/coaching (set out in NGB consultation response). So opportunity to include this programme and then build on that by inclusion of the network of local clubs (details also in consultation response). Potential to become a centre for casual/recreational fun cricket venue – if scale/need supports a venue for an indoor six a side events venue. This seems to be a growing market and something for corporate events/days etc. Limited opportunity to investigate the commercial potential of this dedicated use. SC offers a good location to Central London/Docklands for the corporate market.

Comparator venues to consider are at Truro FE College and Exeter University – the key to development at both venues was an existing organisation on site and wanting to develop. The biggest challenge for SC is that we need a project sponsor and an „anchor tenant.‟

4.3.3 Indoor Athletics Training Venue England Athletics has indentified South London as the last part of London for a sub regional indoor training facility (all other London quadrants have a venue). Need is for up to 110 m indoor 4- 6 lane sprint straight with run off. Outside of the 4-6 lanes need for a jumps training area (long and triple), plus dedicated area for throws events (discuss and shot with caged area and reinforced floor). Strength and conditioning area to also be outside of the 4-6 lanes (in short contain the building span/width and keep the building length)

There is a very good existing local athletic clubs with 5 SE London clubs (including harriers) – average membership 250 members and no indoor facilities at present. So good, strong local club base (again details in the consultation responses). Indoor athletics is not part of proposed Crystal Palace re-development so there is an opportunity to replace this and improve on the CP provision which is now very dated. There would be very good pr and London political support if this happens. Athletics is however also a sport specific dedicated building.


4.4 Summary

The needs analysis sets out the work in progress and a strong case around the emerging priorities, which is grounded in the Lewisham context and priorities but also the wider London perspective. Detailed work now needs to follow to develop the proposals further.


5. Conclusions and Next Steps

This report provides an outline of the work to date and reveals a clear direction in terms of needs and opportunities for development at the SC site. The initial findings have been shared with Lewisham Council who recognise the strategic fit. There is clearly significant work to be undertaken to work up the detail and transform the proposals into a deliverable scheme.

A suggested way forward is set out below.

5.1 Way Forward

The following way forward is suggested:

NAA and Renewal meet to discuss the draft report and agree any amends and changes

The amended report is presented and discussed with Lewisham Council

The report is finalised and goes forward as supporting evidence for the master plan and the priorities identified are developed in the overall site master plan

As the planning application is submitted (or once Renewal and Lewisham are agreed on the outline findings) detailed work will move forward between Renewal, Lewisham Council, Sport England and the NGB‟s to agree the details of the precise projects. This will explore capital costs, management, usage and funding. At the same time discussions will need to take place with the potential office re-location elements Pro-Active Sport and the London Academy, as well as review the outcomes of the Planning Inquiry (if published in this timescale) into the future development of Crystal Palace and the opportunities this may present for SC.

It is envisaged that this work will take place over a 3-4 month period through a series of one to one meetings, with the object of working up a detailed case by case project for the delivery of the sporting components at SC. This will be reporting to a steering group made up of the key partners identified, Renewal, and driven forward by NAA. The output would be a detailed business case of the delivery of the sporting elements on the SC site.

4. Regeneration Statement - New Bermondsey 2011/3.01 Supporting Reports (A4… · Regeneration...

Documents

Transcript of 4. Regeneration Statement - New Bermondsey 2011/3.01 Supporting Reports (A4… · Regeneration...