€¦ · Web viewCambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire District Council. SPORTS HALLS...

Cambridge City CouncilSouth Cambridgeshire District Council

SPORTS HALLS ASSESSMENT

FACILITIES PLANNING MODEL

June 2008

FINAL REPORT

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

1. Introduction Page 5

2. 2008 provision unweighted – run 1 Page 7

3. 2008 provision with weightings – run 2 Page 11

4. 2021 provision with weightings – run 3 Page 16

5. 2021 provision with new halls at Northstowe, Cambridge Regional College, the University of Cambridge, and Cambridge Southern Fringe – run 4 Page 21

6. 2021 provision with new halls at Northstowe, Cambridge Regional College, the University of Cambridge, Cambridge Southern Fringe and Cambridge East – run 5 Page 26

7. 2021 provision with new halls at Northstowe, Cambridge Regional College, Cambridge Southern Fringe and Cambridge East – run 6 Page 31

8. Comparisons between Runs 4 and 6 Page 35

9. General conclusions Page 37

Appendices

1. Active Places Power Plus explained separate

2. Main assumption of APP+ modelling separate3. Parameters separate

4. Run specification and rule filters attached

5. Summary of outputs for the Cambridge area attached

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The main points emerging from the study are set out below. The full report should be read for a comprehensive understanding of the findings

Summary of Run 2 There is currently a range of sports halls in the Cambridge area including local authority,

commercial and school facilities. The halls in Cambridge tend to be newer and therefore more attractive to users, while all halls in South Cambs (with the exception of Bassingbourn currently under construction) were built before 1995.

Supply and capacity exceed total current demand overall by about 30%, slightly higher in Cambridge, and this is just above the national average.

Satisfied demand in the area is slightly higher than the national average, and is similar in Cambridge and South Cambs. The choice of halls is good, and the catchments of halls overlap considerably, not only for car users but also in many cases for those without access to a car, and in South Cambs as well as Cambridge.

Means of access to halls in the area relies more heavily on the car than nationally, though there is a significant proportion of walking and public transport access in Cambridge.

Despite good supply of sports halls, there is a small element of unmet demand, split between Cambridge and South Cambs, but spread thinly across the whole study area. Some of this is due to a lack of capacity at some halls, though the majority is still from those outside the walking or driving catchment of a hall. The highest concentrations of unmet demand do not exceed the equivalent of about half a new hall, and additional 4-court provision in the Cambridge area cannot be justified at the present time for this reason alone, without drawing its throughput from existing halls.

There is significant movement of sports hall demand between Cambridge and South Cambs, and South Cambs is a minor exporter of demand while Cambridge is a significant importer, mainly due to the relative age of facilities.

Throughput overall is well within comfortable capacity levels (about 70%), but some newer facilities are operating up to and beyond their absolute capacity and demand is being declined in some locations.

Overall at the present time, it is considered that sports hall provision in the study area is broadly sufficient to meet total demand, with the exception that more modern facilities are used to capacity.

Summary of Run 3 Demand by 2021 increases by about 21% compared with 2008, less than population but due to a

changing age structure. Without further facility provision, demand reaches 85% of total supply, which is above the national average and in excess of normal levels of usage of sports halls.

Only half the additional demand is satisfied by existing sports halls, as there is insufficient spare capacity in existing halls in the right locations to absorb demand.

The whole of the study area remains within a driving catchment of at least one hall, often more, although many of these halls are unable to accommodate additional demand, but a slightly higher proportion of local residents now live outside walking catchments, particularly in Northstowe.

Unmet demand increases correspondingly by about 7% and most of this is now because existing halls are full, as opposed to halls being outside catchments. Total unmet demand equates to about 15 courts and this is in sufficient concentrations within the study area to justify the provision of up to 4 new 4-court sports halls. The areas of greatest need are Cambridge, particularly the north, west and south fringes, the Northstowe area and the area north of Royston (demand for which might derive from North Herts)

Despite an increase in demand of about 21%, throughput increases by only about 8%, as much of this demand remains unmet through lack of capacity. Total throughput reaches 75% of capacity overall which is approaching uncomfortable levels of use, but the newer and more attractive halls are operating at and above absolute capacity, and would exceed this if not constrained. Demand in these areas is therefore being restrained.

Additional sports hall provision is therefore required in the Cambridge area by 2021 to meet unmet demand arising from overused facilities and from additional population being outside the catchments of existing halls.

__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

2

Summary of Run 4 Run 3 demonstrated that demand for sports halls arising from a significant increase in population in

the Cambridge area cannot be met at existing centres, and that there is some justification for a number of new facilities in areas of greatest demand, particularly in new areas of housing growth.

Run 4 has tested the effectiveness of providing 4 new halls, including 2 large 8-court facilities, in and around the edge of Cambridge. As with pools, it is not possible to be absolutely specific about the effects of each of these proposals separately, without individual assessments.

The provision of these 4 new halls (and 24 new courts) increases capacity in the area by about a quarter. This now represents about 150% of total demand.

Satisfied demand increases, but not in the same proportion as increases in capacity (3% compared with 27%). There is an improvement in accessibility, so that all residents live within a car journey of a hall, and 99% have a choice of halls. Two thirds of residents also live within walking distance of a hall.

Unmet demand however still remains at 13% (compared with 16%) and the provision of 4 new halls (particularly 2 large ones) has little effect on the levels of unmet demand. Unusually this is mainly because even the new levels of supply have little spare capacity. There remains a justification for further new provision in some locations in and on the edge of Cambridge even after these 4 halls are provided. The provision of a larger number of smaller 4 court halls might actually meet demand better, although only in the more urban parts of the study area. Unmet demand in the rural parts of South Cambs are unlikely to be met in any circumstances

The additional provision does mean that both Cambridge and South Cambs become more self sufficient in hall provision, and net importers of demand from other LAs outside the study area.

Total throughput increases particularly in South Cambs, but remains ‘comfortable’ overall at about 71% of capacity. However most of the new halls are considered more attractive by the model and attract usage from elsewhere, so demand is displaced from existing older halls. Most new halls are in fact operating at or above their capacity.

Overall the provision of 4 additional sports halls makes some contribution to meeting need in the area, and in particular the needs of the new development areas around the city. However this is often at the expense of existing halls most of which are quite old and unattractive by comparison. An additional solution might be to provide a variety of smaller halls in appropriate locations throughout the area, and at the same time consider the refurbishment of existing halls in strategic locations, so that there is a greater range of modern attractive halls to meet a need over the wider area.

Summary of Run 5 Run 4 demonstrated that although the provision of 4 new sports halls (24 courts) increased

capacity by about a quarter, and that this represented about 1.5 times demand, satisfied demand increased by only 3%. Unmet demand was still high, the equivalent of a further 4 4-court halls, and was caused more by lack of capacity at the new facilities than residents living outside catchments. Throughput increased in proportion to capacity, but much of this was accommodated at new halls, all of which operated at or above their absolute capacity. Existing halls effectively lost usage to the attractive new facilities, and the additional demand created by the new housing population was not fully met.

The presence of a further hall at Cambridge East increases capacity over run 4 by about 4% (800 visits) and satisfied demand increase by about 150 visits, a higher proportion than with run 4

A new hall in Cambridge East (while not necessarily required to meet additional demand created in this area because of the existence of other halls in the area) improves walking accessibility throughout the whole study area, as there are now more halls each with their own local walking catchment.

Despite additional provision here, there is still relatively high unmet demand throughout the study area in similar locations as before, though to a smaller degree,

Overall throughput in the study area remains at comfortable levels, but some halls particularly the newer ones are operating at capacity.

The provision of a further hall in Cambridge East provides similar benefits to any new hall provision, and serves the locality well, particularly the new housing area, but fails to reduce unmet demand significantly. The same provisos as before exist – that a combination of new


3

provision, of more smaller halls, rationalisation and refurbishment may offer an additional solution to future sports hall provision to 2021.

Summary of Run 6 Of all the new halls scenarios for, this option has the lowest capacity, with only 22% more than now Demand as a proportion of supply is the highest at 70% but well within comfort levels. Satisfied demand is the lowest, but overall halls are more accessible to walkers than option 4

because of the location of a new hall in the new growth area in Cambridge East compared with the University, though there is a slight reduction in overall accessibility among South Cambs residents

Unmet demand is the highest with an equivalent of 13 courts required overall, mainly due, as in all scenarios, to new halls attracting use from existing older ones and operating at capacity and therefore declining demand. Throughputs are lowest, but within comfort levels overall.

As with all scenarios, the provision of additional halls diverts demand from existing facilities and once full these are incapable of accommodating unmet demand arising from additional population. Additional measures are required in combination with new provision in the locations suggested, including refurbishment of existing halls, rationalisation and the provision of more but smaller halls in a variety of locations.

If only four new locations are required to meet future need, there is very little difference in the suitability of Cambridge East compared with the University hall. Cambridge East is more accessible on foot, and would have the main advantage of meeting the local needs of a new development area. The University hall would be more appropriate to meet a car-based usage. Perhaps as importantly, while the model has considered the community use of the University hall, this might depend in the longer term in negotiating a degree of community access that is compatible with the University’s main requirement to provide a facility for its own use.


4

1. INTRODUCTION

The Current Study

The issues to be addressed in the local study are

To assess the extent to which the existing supply of sports halls meets current levels of demand from the resident population

To assess the extent to which the existing supply of sports halls would meet future demand, taking into account population increases and major new housing developments in the area up to 2021

To assess the likely implications of potential changes to the supply/location of some of the current sports halls, taking into account population increases and major new housing developments in the Cambridge area up to 2021.

The six runs analysed in this report consist of the following: Run 1, which is the current position with all the existing halls considered to be equally

attractive. Run 2 places an attractiveness weighting on each of the facilities in the area and a default

weighting on facilities elsewhere in England. These weightings reflect largely the age of the facility.

Run 3 assesses the situation for 2021 when major growth will have been experienced in the Cambridge area.

Runs 4-6 test the location of future sports hall provision

Appendix 1 (separate) to this report provides an explanation of the Facilities Planning Model.

The Study Area

The Study Area comprises Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District, with a 2008 combined population of 257,000. This is distributed 118,000 in Cambridge in a relatively densely populated urban area, and 139,000 in South Cambs, mainly dispersed among 120 or so smaller rural parishes, with no great concentrations of population, except in parts of the Cambridge fringe.

Distribution of sports halls in the Cambridge areas

Supply of sports halls in the Study Area

The database of sports halls to be included in the study has been verified by officers of both local authorities in agreement with Sport England. The rule filter adopted in the assessment is included in Appendix 4 (separate) – the assessment excludes all operational halls of less than 3 court size, unless on the same site as a hall of 3 courts or larger

The availability of supply at each hall site is proportional to its opening hours. In addition, for Runs 2 - 6 some halls have had their capacity further limited by weightings. The weightings applied to each hall in the assessment are listed in Appendix 4.

The supply of sports halls currently found in each local authority is listed below together with the demand


Symbol Range Sports Facility SymbolsUrban > 10K MAINTown and Fringe ACTIVITY HALLVillage

Hamlet & Isolated Dwelling

5

and capacity of each measure in visits per week in the peak period (vpwpp). In the following assessment, visits per week refer to these peak hour visits. An annual figure for throughputs refers to a modified total derived from these weekly visits.

From the outset it should be noted that in overall capacity exceeds demand throughout the study area and in both local authorities.

District Number of sites

Number of courts

Demand vpwpp

Capacity vpwpp

Capacity Visits pa

STUDY AREA 19 74 12400 17500 1.3mCambridge 10 44 6150 9350 739500South Cambridgeshire 9 30 6250 8150 575500

Rounding of Figures

The Facilities Planning Model produces specific figures through output tables (the summary tables for the 2 LAs and the study area are included in Appendix 5). However when reading a long report there is a danger of assuming that these allocations are actual throughput figures. Rounding the figures to the nearest 50 helps avoid placing undue emphasis on small variations (though this can in some cases produce seeming anomalies due to rounding). Percentages have generally been given to the nearest 1%. Hall dimensions and courts are not rounded.

Maps to accompany this report are available separately.


6

2. 2008 PROVISION UNWEIGHTED – RUN 1

Introduction

This Run assumes that all facilities in England are equally attractive. Another way to think of this is that every facility in the country is less than fifteen years old, well maintained and well managed. These are clearly unrealistic assumptions, and therefore very little analysis has been undertaken on this Run. The Run does however provide some illuminating contrasts in a number of ways. For example, it gives us an insight into how demand for sports halls across the Cambridge area would be served if all halls were brought up to modern standards in their present locations and open for their current hours. This section is also useful in explaining the terms used in the model – for a fuller explanation see Appendix 1.

SupplyA list of sports halls in the Cambridge area is set out in the table below. This includes ancillary halls, which are included in the assessment where they are more than 18 x 10m and on the same site as a main hall of 3 courts or more. There is a range of ages and types of ownership, though most (as is common in Cambridgeshire) are on school sites and run as dual use centres.

HALL No. of courts

Length m

Width m

Area m2

Ownership Date built

Cherry Hinton Village College 4 33 18 594 Educ 1989Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre 8 37 33 1221 LA 1978The Leys Sports Complex 5 810 Educ 1995Chesterton Sports Centre 4 33 18 594 Educ 2004Chesterton Sports Centre 1 18 10 180 Educ 2004Hills Road Sports and Tennis Centre 4 33 18 594 Educ 1996Manor Community College 3 486 Educ 2006St Bede’s School 4 33 18 594 Educ 2006Perse School 5/6 38 22 862 Educ 2000Next Generation 4 33 18 594 Commercial 2004Netherhall Sports Centre 4 33 18 594 Educ 1990

Bassingbourn Village College (due to open Easter 2008)

433 18 594

Educ 2008

Bassingbourn Village College 1 18 10 180 EducCambridge Regional College 4 33 18 594 Educ 1993Comberton Leisure 4 33 18 594 Educ 1980Comberton Leisure 1 18 10 180 Educ 1980Cottenham and District Sports Centre 3 486 Educ 1995Cottenham and District Sports Centre 1 18 10 180 Educ 1995Impington Sports Centre 4 33 18 594 Educ 1995Impington Sports Centre 1 18 10 180 Educ 1995Linton Community Sports Centre 3 27 17 459 Educ 1992Linton Community Sports Centre 1 18 10 180 Educ 1992Melbourn Community Sports Ltd 3 486 Educ 1991Sawston Village College Sports Centre 3 486 Educ 1970Sawston Village College Sports Centre 2 324 Educ 1970Swavesey Village College Sports Centre 3 486 Educ 1960

There are 19 sites in the study area, comprising 74 courts, with a total potential capacity in the weekly peak period of 17,500 visits (equivalent to 1.31m visits per annum).


7

In Cambridge, there are 10 sites with 44 courts, and a potential capacity of 9,350 visits per week, the equivalent of 729,500 visits per year in total

In South Cambs, there are 9 sites with 30 courts, and a potential capacity of 8,150 visits per week, the equivalent of 575,500 visits per year in total.

In terms of relative provision compared with other areas, Cambridge has 0.37 courts per 1000 population, South Cambs 0.22, and the study area 0.29. Nationally the ratio is 0.29 courts per 1000, so overall provision in the study area is exactly at the national average

DemandFrom the resident 2008 population of the study area of 257,850, demand for sports halls is estimated at 12,400 visits per week (equivalent to 1.03m visits per annum). This represents about 71% of available capacity in the area. Broken down into the LA areas, the situation is as follows:

Population Demand % of capacityCambridge 118,600 6150 66%South Cambs 139,250 6250 77%

Demand is therefore divided almost equally between the two local authority areas, but there is significant higher spare capacity in Cambridge due to the larger number of halls.

Demand is ‘satisfied’ in the model where the point of origin of individual visits is located within the relevant modal catchment limit of a hall, and where that hall has spare capacity. The ‘modal split’ in each census output area depends on car ownership levels. For each travel mode, the catchment area is defined by the distance that can be travelled in 30 minutes. Within these areas, the model assumes that the further away the point of origin of a visit from a hall, the less likely it is that the visit will be made. All visits are assumed to start from home.

Satisfied demand in the Cambridge area is estimated at 11,700 visits per week (975,000 visits per annum), or 94% of total demand. This is higher than the average for England as a whole (23%), and is a reflection of good supply and relatively good accessibility of halls throughout the study area. The equivalent figures for satisfied demand in Cambridge and South Cambs are 95% and 94%, which confirms the high levels of accessibility and the location of halls

Within the study area, 84% of trips to halls are made by car, 3% by public transport and 13% on foot. The national average is 80% car, 4% by public transport and 16% on foot. The respective figures for Cambridge are 72%, 6% and 22%, which reflect lower car ownership levels in the city, better walking access to local halls and the even geographical spread of halls. In South Cambs the figures are 95%, 1% and 4%, a reflection of much of the district’s rural nature.

Unmet demand in the study area is for 700 visits per week (equivalent to 57,750 visits per annum), representing about 6% of total demand. The totals for Cambridge are 350 visits per week (28,000 p a) representing 5% of total demand, and for South Cambs 350 per week (29,750 pa) or 6% of total demand. In this unweighted run of the model, all of this is ‘no go’ or declined demand, where potential users cannot or choose not to visit halls because of distance and time. It is not the result of lack of capacity at existing halls in the area. 87% of this is from those without access to a car - i.e. those who live outside or on the edge of a walking catchment who choose not to use a hall because of the time and distance involved in walking there, and 13% from those with cars who live at the edge of the catchment (probably in the rural parts of South Cambs). In Cambridge 98% of unmet demand is from those without a car (only 2% with a car cannot or choose not to visit a pool), while in South Cambs 23% is from car owners and 77% from those without a car, which suggests that even those with cars may decide not to visit a hall because of distance

When aggregated over the whole study area the unmet demand is equivalent to 4 badminton courts, at the national average usage of 80% of capacity, or about one new 4-court hall (at the national average usage level of 80%). This is split equally between Cambridge and South Cambs. It is spread thinly


8

over much of the whole study area, and is never in a sufficient concentration to justify the provision of an additional pool in any one location. The largest concentration of aggregated unmet demand is found in Cambridge, along the A14 and A10 where accessibility is highest and on the outskirts of Royston, but there is no 2km square with a total value of more than 0.8 courts (i.e. less than a quarter of a hall)

Export and ImportThe model also estimates the relationship between halls and origins of users, and can determine whether each district is a net importer or exporter of demand. In an area such as the Cambridge area, where the main centre of population is surrounded by countryside, and the nearest other large settlements are some distance away, there is unlikely normally to be significant movement between neighbouring local authority areas, unless halls are located on the edge of each local authority area.

In this case, the model estimates that 85% of Cambridge’s demand is met in the city itself, quarter of throughput is imported from South Cambs and other neighbouring local authority areas and very little demand is exported. Overall Cambridge is a net importer of about 1000 visits per week (17% of total demand). South Cambs retains about 61% of its own demand, exports about one third to other LAs but also imports about 37% from surrounding towns like Royston and Huntingdon. Overall South Cambs is also a small importer of demand of about 200 visits, 3% of the total

ThroughputThe projected throughput of halls in the study area is estimated at 12,900 visits per week (960,000 pa), which represents 74% of available capacity. In Cambridge this is 6800 visits per week/ 530,000 pa (73% of capacity) and in South Cambs 6100 per week/430,000 pa (also 59%). The actual capacity of halls will depend on a number of factors, such as pool programming, comfort for participants, etc. None of the capacity of any halls is constrained in this run by weighting factors. It is unlikely and not desirable that usage levels will match the maximum theoretical capacity. A used capacity of 80% is usually regarded as comfortably full. Both LAs in the area are approaching this comfortable level of throughput.

Relative ShareRelative share is used in the model to identify areas whose residents are relatively disadvantaged in terms of their access to sports halls. By looking at the share of halls within a local area, it highlights areas where there is more generous or less generous supply of court space. This is done by calculating the number of hall units per demand unit. The outputs show negative and positive values, in comparison with the England average. Throughout much of the area, there are positive values which signify that relative share is above the national average, but the city, A14 and A10 corridors and the rural part of north west South Cambs bordering Huntingdonshire display negative values and therefore have low relative share.

Summary of Run 1If all the halls in the Cambridge area were modern, well maintained, located in their present position and open for their current hours, there would be a good level of supply to meet the demand for sports halls in the City. Relative provision is at about the national average. Supply exceeds demand, and throughput in total is below the comfortable level of use of 70%. Despite the good supply and there are high levels of satisfied demand. Despite the good supply, there is some unmet demand, mainly from those without access to a car, but also from those who live at the edge of or beyond a reasonable driving distance. Because this unmet demand is spread throughout the area, there is no one location in the area where a new hall could be justified on these grounds alone. There is some movement of demand between both areas and outside the study area, and both LAs are net importers of demand – i.e. on balance they serve a wider than local need.

However these broad conclusions are based on an assumption that all halls are equally attractive to potential users, and do not reflect the real situation. This run has been undertaken for illustrative purposes only, and Run 2, which follows, using weighted information, forms the baseline for the whole study.


9

3. 2008 PROVISION WITH WEIGHTINGS – RUN 2

Introduction

This run represents an assessment of current provision in 2008 with an attractiveness weighting added to individual facilities, which is based on the year built or year of most recent refurbishment. These are on sliding scales with older halls being less attractive. In this assessment, nationally derived weightings are applied based, (though in other studies locally determined weightings have been used)

The way in which both these attractiveness weightings work is to allocate smaller number of users as a hall is downweighted. For example a hall weighted at 50% will only be allocated half as many users compared to what it would have been allocated at 100% attractiveness. A hall weighted at 25% will be allocated only a quarter of the visits that it would have had, had it been at 100% and so forth. The weightings used in the assessment are set out in Appendix 4.

Supply/CapacitySites Courts Visits per week Visits p a

Study area 19 74 17500 1.31mCambridge 10 44 9350 729,500South Cambs 9 30 8150 575,500

The supply and capacity of existing halls is unaffected by weighting.

DemandPopulation Visits per week Visits p a % of supply

Study area 257850 12400 1.03m 71%Cambridge 118600 6150 510000 66%South Cambs 139250 6250 523000 77%England 79%

The demand for halls is based on population and participation rates, and is unaffected by weighting. Demand in the study area is concentrated in the main built up areas of Cambridge and the fringe parishes, and is highest in areas of higher density housing, and where the population is younger and therefore more likely to take part in halls sports. It is more thinly distributed around South Cambs, although total demand is slightly higher because of the larger overall population. Overall demand is therefore split equally between the two LAs in the study area, capacity exceeds demand (although by less than the national average) and there is more excess capacity in Cambridge than South Cambs.

Satisfied demand Visits per week Visits p a % of total demand

Study area 11300 943000 91%Cambridge 5600 467000 92%South Cambs 5700 476000 91%England 89%


10

Satisfied demand is lower than the level in unweighted run 1, and reflects the reduced attractiveness of some halls. In the study area, it remains above the national average level, and there is little difference in the levels of satisfied demand in Cambridge and South Cambs.

The high levels of satisfied demand are due to the number, supply and capacity of halls and their distribution within the city and throughout the rural parts of South Cambs. The whole population of the Cambridge area lives within 20 minutes drive time of at least one hall, and 90% more than 2 halls, and all residents of Cambridge are within the catchment of more than 2 halls. Walking accessibility is better

than for pools, because of the larger number of halls – 60% of the population of the study area can walk to a hall (90% in Cambridge), and over 20% have a choice of more than 2 halls. Over 30% of even South Cambs residents can walk to a hall and 5% have a choice of halls.

Mode of transportCar Public transport Foot

Study area 84% 3% 13%Cambridge 73% 6% 22%South Cambs 95% 1% 4%__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

11

England 80% 4% 16%

Compared with the national average, access by people in the Cambridge area to halls relies slightly more heavily on the car. However there is a clear difference between Cambridge, where halls are closer and more accessible on foot, and South Cambs where there is almost a total reliance on the car, despite the number of halls, which are more remotely located.Unmet demand

Visits per week Visits p a Requirement No go Car No carStudy area 1100 90150 7 courts 65% 13% 87%Cambridge 500 43500 3 courts 67% 2% 98%South Cambs 550 46650 4 courts 64% 24% 76%England 62% 10% 90%

Despite the apparent surplus of sports hall space in the study area, there is still a small element of unmet demand (it is not possible anywhere to achieve 100% satisfied demand). Unlike the unweighted run 1, a significant proportion (about one third) is due to the lack of capacity at sports halls to meet demand within their catchment, as the weighting makes some halls, particularly the newer ones, more attractive. Nonetheless a majority of unmet demand is still from those who live outside or at the edge of the catchment within which potential users would choose to visit halls. Two thirds of this overall is from people without the use of a car (mainly in Cambridge), and mostly those without cars. In South Cambs however a quarter of ‘no go’ is from car users.

The total unmet demand over the whole area increases over the unweighted run from 4 to 7 courts (at the national average usage level of 80%), and this is divided equally between Cambridge and South Cambs. However, as before, this unmet demand is spread thinly over much of the study area, and the highest levels of Total Aggregated Demand (the measure used) within any 2 km2 grid are only 2 to 2.6 courts in the city area, along the A14 towards Huntingdon and in SW South Cambs near Royston (much of which is likely to be generated outside the study area in Huntingdon and North Herts respectively). This is the equivalent of only about half a new 4-court hall, and additional provision cannot therefore be justified without drawing its throughput from existing facilities, despite the fact that some halls are already up to capacity.

Export and Import Demand exported Demand

importedDemand retained Net import/export

Cambridge 400 visits 6% 1800 26% 5200 85% +1400 +23%South Cambs 2200 35% 1700 32% 3500 56% -500 –8%

Compared with the unweighted run, the halls in Cambridge are slightly more attractive, resulting in Cambridge remaining a net importer of demand, while South Cambs becomes a minor exporter of demand. Cambridge imports most demand from South Cambs, with some from neighbouring LA areas like East Cambs, while South Cambs has a greater relationship with surrounding LAs particularly in importing demand from North Herts and Huntingdonshire in particular.

Export


12

Import

ThroughputVisits per week Visits p a % of available capacity


While the demand and supply estimated by the model remains unchanged from Run 1, throughput is affected by the weighting factors applied in the model. Downweighting reduces the attractiveness of older halls.

In most areas and nationally, this downweighting results in reduced throughputs compared with an unweighted run, and this applies to this study. However this overall decrease masks a small increase in Cambridge (3%) and a significant decrease in South Cambs (117%). The main reason for this is that halls in Cambridge are generally newer than those in South Cambs, and therefore more attractive to users. Individual projected throughputs are set out in the table below.

While the overall level of used capacity is about 70%, six halls are used to capacity (mainly the newer ones) and in fact would exceed this capacity if the model did not constrain this Some others are operating above their comfortable capacity, including Kelsey Kerridge.

ATTR %% Demand of Capacity

Modifiedannual thro'put

Run 1 throughput

CHERRY HINTON VILLAGE CENTRE 97 100.0 48427 35182CHESTERTON SPORTS CENTRE 50 56.7 62653 80207HILLS ROAD SPORTS & TENNIS CENTRE 47 54.1 50572 67962KELSEY KERRIDGE SPORTS CENTRE 70 80.2 121936 110469MANOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 100 100.0 35241 25602NETHERHALL SPORTS CENTRE 88 100.0 64524 46877NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 100 100.0 86533 62866PERSE SCHOOL 49 55.6 28815 37676ST BEDES INTER CHURCH COMPREHENSIVE 50 57.0 29774 37982THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 47 53.6 18575 25162

BASSINGBOURN VILLAGE COLLEGE 100 100.0 73154 56819CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE

4955.8 26347 34300

COMBERTON LEISURE 47 53.7 57936 78445COTTENHAM & DISTRICT SPORTS CENTRE 45 51.6 25720 36192


13

IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 47 53.6 34270 46429LINTON COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE 46 61.3 38608 46568MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 89 100.0 32030 24878SAWSTON VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 45 51.4 59177 83609SWAVESEY VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 27 34.8 8115 22623

Relative ShareThe effect of weighting is to exacerbate the relatively low share of halls in Cambridge where halls are now more attractive, and the area north west of Cambridge, while the remainder of South Cambs retains a positive share of sports halls.

Summary of Run 2 There is currently a range of sports halls in the Cambridge area including local authority,

commercial and school facilities. The halls in Cambridge tend to be newer and therefore more attractive to users, while all halls in South Cambs (with the exception of Bassingbourn currently under construction) were built before 1995.

Supply and capacity exceed total current demand overall by about 30%, slightly higher in Cambridge, and this is just above the national average.

Satisfied demand in the area is slightly higher than the national average, and is similar in Cambridge and South Cambs. The choice of halls is good, and the catchments of halls overlap considerably, not only for car users but also in many cases for those without access to a car, and in South Cambs as well as Cambridge.

Means of access to halls in the area relies more heavily on the car than nationally, though there is a significant proportion of walking and public transport access in Cambridge.

Despite good supply of sports halls, there is a small element of unmet demand, split between Cambridge and South Cambs, but spread thinly across the whole study area. Some of this is due to a lack of capacity at some halls, though the majority is still from those outside the walking or driving catchment of a hall. The highest concentrations of unmet demand do not exceed the equivalent of about half a new hall, and additional 4-court provision in the Cambridge area cannot be justified at the present time for this reason alone, without drawing its throughput from existing halls.

There is significant movement of sports hall demand between Cambridge and South Cambs, and South Cambs is a minor exporter of demand while Cambridge is a significant importer, mainly due to the relative age of facilities.

Throughput overall is well within comfortable capacity levels (about 70%), but some newer facilities are operating up to and beyond their absolute capacity and demand is being declined in some locations.

Overall at the present time, it is considered that sports hall provision in the study area is broadly sufficient to meet total demand, with the exception that more modern facilities are used to capacity.


14

4. 2016 PROVISION WITH WEIGHTINGS – RUN 3

IntroductionThis scenario is essentially one of “do nothing for the next 13 years” in relation to sports hall provision. In consequence three things happen:

The sports hall stock ages by 13 years and the attractiveness weightings are thus more severe. This creates further limitations on capacity.

Population increases across the Cambridge area. This creates additional demand for sports halls and creates further pressure on capacity.

The age structure of the population changes, resulting in a higher proportion of older people who have lower participation rates than the young. This partially counteracts additional demand produced by the population increase – see demand below.

Existing facilities remain the same.

The following assessment compares this run with the weighted current situation (Run 2).


Study area 19 74 17500 1.31mCambridge 10 44 9350 729,500South Cambs 9 30 8150 575,500

The supply and capacity of existing halls remain the same as in 2008.



Population in the study area increases overall by 25%, but the demand for sports halls increases by only 21%, the result of an ageing in the population, and its impact on participation rates in hall sports.. In Cambridge the respective figures are 26% and 22%, and in South Cambs 24% and 19%, a reflection of the differing growth rates and demographic profiles.

The increased demand is experienced primarily in the new growth areas and in particular in the large developments east of Cambridge and in Northstowe.

Overall without the provision of additional halls, demand as a proportion of total supply increases from 71% in 20078 to 85% in 2021, in Cambridge from 66% to 80% and in South Cambs from 77% to 91%. This compares with the national average of 85%.

Satisfied demand Satisfied demand in 2021 increases significantly by 1250 visits per week overall, but this is only half the increase in total demand. As a proportion of total demand, satisfied demand drops from 91% to 84%, which is now below the national average. There are similar decreases in levels of satisfied demand in both Cambridge and South Cambs. Unlike with pools, there is insufficient spare capacity in existing halls in the right locations to absorb all additional demand.

Visits per week Visits p a % of total demandStudy area 12550 1.05m 84%Cambridge 6400 534500 85%


15

South Cambs 6150 512500 83%England 86%

The effect of significant population growth in the Cambridge area is to make existing halls slightly less accessible overall. The whole population of the area remains within a 20-minute drive of at least 1 hall, and all of Cambridge remains accessible by car to more than 2 halls. The main impact is on walking accessibility, and about 40% of the population are outside a 20-minute walk, compared with 40% in 2008. This affects both Cambridge and South Cambs.


Study area 84% 3% 13%Cambridge 73% 5% 22%South Cambs 96% 1% 3%England 80% 4% 16%


16

The increased population by 2021 and its distribution make little difference to the mode of transport used by those whose demand is satisfied. The variation between predominantly car based access in South Cambs and more walking in Cambridge is repeated, though there is a marginal increase in car access in South Cambs at the expense of walking, as the facilities are more distant, particularly from the large new development in Northstowe.

These figures reflect assumptions about car accessibility implicit in the specification. If Northstowe and Cambridge East are more PT orientated this could affect this aspect of the model.

Unmet demand Visits per week Visits p a Requirement No go Car No carStudy area 2400 199000 15 courts 36% 14% 86%Cambridge 1100 92000 7 courts 38% 2% 98%South Cambs 550 197500 8 courts 34% 25% 75%England 49% 11% 89%

Unmet demand overall almost doubles, and in 2021 with no additional halls represents 16% of total demand (slightly lower than the national average). This is fairly constant between Cambridge and South Cambs. Whereas in 2008 one third of this was caused by the lack of capacity in halls, this figure now rises to three quarters overall, again similar in both Cambridge and South Cambs. The major cause of unmet demand is because halls within the catchment of much of the population are becoming full without the additional of further facilities. The element of unmet demand caused by inaccessibility to halls is mainly from those without access to a car, though car users in South Cambs are also denied usage.

The total unmet demand over the whole area increases from the equivalent of 7 courts in 2008 to 15 courts in 2021, evenly divided between Cambridge and South Cambs. While spread across much of the study area, there are now concentrations of unmet demand where additional sports halls can be justified to meet demand alone. Some grid squares have aggregated unmet demand values of 7.6 courts (1.75 halls). These include in particular the north, west and south fringes of Cambridge – interestingly the east fringe is still well served by existing halls (see separate map). In South Cambs such areas include Northstowe and the area north of Royston (where demand may well be generated outside the district in North Herts). Up to 4 new 4-court halls might therefore be required to meet unmet demand up to 2021, and the locations above are appropriate for this.



Cambridge 600 visits 8% 1900 24% 5850 78% +1300 +17%South Cambs 2450 33% 1800 33% 3700 50% -700 –9%

The effect of increased population over the whole area without associated facility provision is to reduce the level of net import of demand in Cambridge and slightly increase the net export from South Cambs. There is slightly greater export of demand outside of the study area to other LAs (where population growth was not considered as part of this exercise, but where it is likely to be much less in any case), and where spare capacity in halls may exist.

Export


17

Import



Despite an increase in demand of about 21% throughput overall increases by only about 8%, as much of this demand is declined by the lack of capacity at existing halls and the inaccessibility of others. As a proportion of total capacity, throughput approaches 75% overall which is getting close to comfortable levels of use. In Cambridge this level is exceeded.

Individual halls, and those in the best locations to meet demand, continue to operate at absolute capacity and would exceed this by anything up to 53% if not constrained by the model. The main and newer halls therefore deny a significant amount of demand.

ATTR %

% this Demand of Capacity

Modified annual thro'put

CHERRY HINTON VILLAGE CENTRE 75 100.0 48427CHESTERTON SPORTS CENTRE 45 74.2 81935HILLS ROAD SPORTS & TENNIS CENTRE 41 67.1 62753KELSEY KERRIDGE SPORTS CENTRE 48 79.3 120612MANOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 91 100.0 35241NETHERHALL SPORTS CENTRE 69 100.0 64524NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 100.0 86533PERSE SCHOOL 43 70.9 36766ST BEDES INTER CHURCH COMPREHENSIVE 46 75.7 39570THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 40 66.1 22887

BASSINGBOURN VILLAGE COLLEGE 93 100.0 73154CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE

4066.2 31277


18

COMBERTON LEISURE 33 54.4 58687COTTENHAM & DISTRICT SPORTS CENTRE 38 61.9 30825IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 40 66.1 42233LINTON COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE 38 63.0 39631MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 70 100.0 32030SAWSTON VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 28 45.9 52864SWAVESEY VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 23 44.2 10310

Relative ShareThe increased population to 2021 makes little difference to the balance and distribution of relative share in the area, except that overall values decreases as facilities fail to keep pace with population. The area of the city north and east of Cambridge remains below the national average share, and most of South Cambs above.

Summary of Run 3 Demand by 2021 increases by about 21% compared with 2008, less than population but due to a

changing age structure. Without further facility provision, demand reaches 85% of total supply, which is above the national average and in excess of normal levels of usage of sports halls.

Only half the additional demand is satisfied by existing sports halls, as there is insufficient spare capacity in existing halls in the right locations to absorb demand.

The whole of the study area remains within a driving catchment of at least one hall, often more, although many of these halls are unable to accommodate additional demand, but a slightly higher proportion of local residents now live outside walking catchments, particularly in Northstowe.

Unmet demand increases correspondingly by about 7% and most of this is now because existing halls are full, as opposed to halls being outside catchments. Total unmet demand equates to about 15 courts and this is in sufficient concentrations within the study area to justify the provision of up to 4 new 4-court sports halls. The areas of greatest need are Cambridge, particularly the north, west and south fringes, the Northstowe area and the area north of Royston (demand for which might derive from North Herts)

Despite an increase in demand of about 21%, throughput increases by only about 8%, as much of this demand remains unmet through lack of capacity. Total throughput reaches 75% of capacity overall which is approaching uncomfortable levels of use, but the newer and more attractive halls are operating at and above absolute capacity, and would exceed this if not constrained. Demand in these areas is therefore being restrained.

Additional sports hall provision is therefore required in the Cambridge area by 2021 to meet unmet demand arising from overused facilities and from additional population being outside the catchments of existing halls.


19

5. 2021 PROVISION WITH NEW HALLS AT NORTHSTOWE, CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE, THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, AND CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE – RUN 4

IntroductionThis scenario sets out the 2021 situation with existing facilities and the addition of the following halls:

New 8 court hall at Northstowe, 1188m2, with full community access outside school time (in South Cambs)

New 4 court sports hall at Cambridge Regional College, 594m2, with full community access and standard school opening times (in South Cambs)

New 4 court sports hall at Cambridge Southern Fringe, 594m2 with full community access outside school time (in Cambridge)

New 8 court hall at Cambridge University, 1188m2, with full community access and standard school default opening times (in Cambridge)

This section compares Run 4 with the weighted 2021 situation (Run 3). It can then be used to compare other scenarios for meeting future swimming pool need in the area up to 2021.


Study area 22 98 22200 1.56mCambridge 12 56 11700 863000South Cambs 10 42 10500 695000

The number of halls in Run 4 increases by 4 on 3 additional sites, and courts by 24. Capacity increases by 27% and this is divided roughly equally in both LA areas.



The demand for halls remains the same as in Run 3, but as a proportion of supply decreases significantly from 85% to 67% overall, and from 80% to 64% in Cambridge and from 91% to 71% in South Cambs. ‘Spare’ capacity is much higher than the national average (though this is a false comparison as additional facilities in England are not incorporated in this run).


Study area 13000 1.08m 87%Cambridge 6700 559000 89%South Cambs 6300 526000 85%England 86%

Despite the provision of an additional 27% capacity in the study area, the amount of satisfied demand increases only marginally by 450 visits per week (3%), two thirds of which is in Cambridge. Cambridge residents are clearly closer to the proposed new facilities overall, despite two of these being in South Cambs, many of whose residents live in the rural parts of the district. Satisfied demand is now around the national average (although new facility provision elsewhere in England is not considered in this run).

The effect on accessibility of 4 additional halls is that all but about 1% of residents in the whole area now have access to more than 1 hall by car (and 70% to more than 2 halls), and the proportion of residents who live within walking distance of a hall increases from about 57% to 67%. In particular South Cambs residents now have much better access to sports halls than before, though two thirds still remain outside the walking catchment of a hall.__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

20



The availability of 4 additional halls, particularly a new hall in Northstowe surrounded by new housing, marginally increases walking accessibility to halls overall, at the expense of car usage. There is still an overriding dependence on the use of the car in the overall study area.


As with satisfied demand, additional capacity reduces unmet demand by only a small amount to 13% compared with 16%. The main reason for this level of unmet demand is still because sports halls have little spare capacity, though ‘no go’ unmet demand rises slightly to 39% of the total from 36%.


21

Despite the provision of 4 new halls, and 24 additional courts, there remains unmet demand equivalent to 12 courts (compared with 15 in run 3). This is still distributed across the study area, and although individual values are lower (the maximum aggregated unmet demand in any square is 6.5 courts), ‘hotspots’ are still found in NW Cambridge and along the A14. These are areas where car access is good and it is not possible to identify hotspots for walking accessibility.

The existence of large amounts of unmet demand despite additional sports hall provision may suggest that the scenarios tested do not necessarily represent the best options for future provision. Most importantly, the model allocates most usage to newer halls because of their attractiveness, and demand is diverted from older halls. The option of refurbishing some of these older halls might also be considered as a means of redressing the balance. Moreover, 8-court halls in particular do not tend to improve overall walking accessibility to sports facilities any better than smaller halls, and 2 4-court halls are usually better than 1 larger hall in this respect. However this is unlikely to be the solution in this case as even the large halls are used to their capacity. .



Cambridge 750 visits 10% 2400 29% 6000 79% +1650 +22%South Cambs 2050 27% 3150 42% 4300 58% +1100 +15%

There is a significant shift in the balance of import and export of demand. The provision of additional halls in South Cambs and Cambridge allows both districts to become more self sufficient, and indeed both import much demand from outside the area (though this must be qualified by the fact that additional provision outside was not tested), to the extent that both LAs become net importers of demand.

Export

Import


Study area 15750 1.07m 71%Cambridge 8350 612000 71%South Cambs 7450 463000 71%__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

22

England 86%

The increase in capacity of 27% is almost matched by an increase in throughput of 20%. This varies between 8% in Cambridge and 35% in South Cambs, though the latter is where 60% of the additional capacity is located

As a proportion of available capacity, total throughput is ‘comfortable’ at 71%.

Total throughput increases by about 104000 overall, but new halls because of their attractiveness weighting account for 268000 additional visits, while throughput at existing halls decreases. Throughput at these new halls and other existing newer ones (Manor, Next Generation, Bassingbourn) is in fact is constrained by their capacity, and some demand within their catchment remains unmet.

ATTR %% this Demand of

CapacityModified annual

thro'put

CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE 100 100.0 44561CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY 50 64.1 57096CHERRY HINTON VILLAGE CENTRE 75 95.6 46320CHESTERTON SPORTS CENTRE 45 58.1 64165HILLS ROAD SPORTS & TENNIS CENTRE 41 52.5 49143KELSEY KERRIDGE SPORTS CENTRE 48 62.1 94453MANOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 91 100.0 35241NETHERHALL SPORTS CENTRE 69 88.0 56798NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 100.0 86533PERSE SCHOOL 43 55.5 28792ST BEDES INTER CHURCH COMPREHENSIVE 46 59.3 30988THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 40 51.8 17924 BASSINGBOURN VILLAGE COLLEGE 93 100.0 73154CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE SPORT 100 100.0 77982COMBERTON LEISURE 33 42.6 45959COTTENHAM & DISTRICT SPORTS CENTRE 38 48.5 24141IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 40 51.8 33074LINTON COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE 38 62.6 39428MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 70 90.2 28892NORTHSTOWE 100 100.0 89122SAWSTON VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 28 36.0 41391SWAVESEY VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 23 40.9 9548

Relative ShareThe effect of making significant provision in the 4 new locations is to increase the relative share of halls over the whole study area, to the extent that all the study area, with the exception of the far NW corner of South Cambs (where relative shortfalls are probably due to the situation in Huntingdonshire) now has a positive share of access to halls – i.e. it is better than the national average.

Summary of Run 4 Run 3 demonstrated that demand for sports halls arising from a significant increase in population in

the Cambridge area cannot be met at existing centres, and that there is some justification for a number of new facilities in areas of greatest demand, particularly in new areas of housing growth.

Run 4 has tested the effectiveness of providing 4 new halls, including 2 large 8-court facilities, in and around the edge of Cambridge. As with pools, it is not possible to be absolutely specific about the effects of each of these proposals separately, without individual assessments.

The provision of these 4 new halls (and 24 new courts) increases capacity in the area by about a quarter. This now represents about 150% of total demand.


23

Satisfied demand increases, but not in the same proportion as increases in capacity (3% compared with 27%). There is an improvement in accessibility, so that all residents live within a car journey of a hall, and 99% have a choice of halls. Two thirds of residents also live within walking distance of a hall.

Unmet demand however still remains at 13% (compared with 16%) and the provision of 4 new halls (particularly 2 large ones) has little effect on the levels of unmet demand. Unusually this is mainly because even the new levels of supply have little spare capacity. There remains a justification for further new provision in some locations in and on the edge of Cambridge even after these 4 halls are provided. The provision of a larger number of smaller 4 court halls might actually meet demand better, although only in the more urban parts of the study area. Unmet demand in the rural parts of South Cambs are unlikely to be met in any circumstances

The additional provision does mean that both Cambridge and South Cambs become more self sufficient in hall provision, and net importers of demand from other LAs outside the study area.

Total throughput increases particularly in South Cambs, but remains ‘comfortable’ overall at about 71% of capacity. However most of the new halls are considered more attractive by the model and attract usage from elsewhere, so demand is displaced from existing older halls. Most new halls are in fact operating at or above their capacity.

Overall the provision of 4 additional sports halls makes some contribution to meeting need in the area, and in particular the needs of the new development areas around the city. However this is often at the expense of existing halls most of which are quite old and unattractive by comparison. An additional solution might be to provide a variety of smaller halls in appropriate locations throughout the area, and at the same time consider the refurbishment of existing halls in strategic locations, so that there is a greater range of modern attractive halls to meet a need over the wider area.


24

6. 2021 PROVISION WITH NEW HALLS AT NORTHSTOWE, CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE, THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE AND CAMBRIDGE EAST– RUN 5

IntroductionThis scenario sets out the 2021 situation analysed in Run 4, with existing facilities, four halls at Northstowe, Regional College, Southern Fringe and the University, and the following additional hall:

New 4 court sports hall at Cambridge East, 594m2 with full community access outside school time (in Cambridge)

This section compares Run 5 with Run 4, as a means of estimating the best approach to pool provision in 2021.



In this run, the number of halls increases by 1 in Cambridge. The capacity is 4% greater than in Run 4, all located in the city. Compared with the existing number of halls, capacity is 31% higher.



Demand remains the same as in all 2021 scenarios, but as a proportion of supply decreases sharply from 85% (current supply) to 67% in Run 4 and 65% here overall. The equivalent figures for Cambridge are 80% and 64% to 60% in Cambridge and from 91% to 71% in South Cambs (there is no change to the number of halls in South Cambs between Runs 4 and 5). Slightly more so than in Run 4, there is ample supply to meet demand, and this surplus is significantly higher than the national average (with the proviso that no additional facilities elsewhere in England are incorporated in this run).



The provision of an additional capacity of 800 visits in Cambridge East results in an increase in satisfied demand of about 150 visits, which is a better proportion than between runs 3 and 4 (i.e. 4700 increase in capacity, 450 increase in satisfied demand). Two thirds of the increased satisfied demand is in South Cambs, despite the hall being located in Cambridge.

In terms of accessibility there is no difference to car users, as all residents are within a driving catchment of a hall, and about 99% have a choice of halls. Because a further hall is located in the midst of a large new housing area, walking accessibility now improves to the extent that about 69% of residents are within a walking catchment of a hall overall (compared with 67% in run 4). There are small improvement to walking accessibility in both Cambridge (where only about 1-2% of residents are outside a walking catchment) and South Cambs.


25



There is no measurable difference to the means of transport to halls in run 5, though the rounded figures do mask slightly increased walking accessibility at the expense of both car and public transport, as the hall is located in a new housing area.



26

Unmet demand decreases by 150 visits per week, which is a significant proportion of the additional capacity created, mainly in South Cambs and near to the proposed housing growth area east of Cambridge. Overall unmet demand is 12% of the total, compared with 13% in run 4 – 10% in Cambridge and 14% in South Cambs.

As in run 4, the main cause of unmet demand is the lack of capacity at some halls, as opposed to residents living outside catchments, though to a slightly lesser degree (60% compared with 61%).

The reduced level of unmet demand in this run is the equivalent of 11 courts (or 2.8 halls) compared with 12 in run 4 and 15 in run 3. The distribution of this is broadly similar, though the values are lower (the maximum in any grid square is 6 courts). There are still areas in and around Cambridge where additional sports halls might still be provided to meet unmet demand, and similar comment to above apply – that a distribution of more, smaller halls, combined with refurbishment of existing halls, might be considered an additional solution to meeting demand.



Cambridge 740 visits 10% 2850 32% 6020 80% +2150 +28%South Cambs 2150 29% 3100 42% 4250 57% -+900 +12%

The provision of an additional hall in Cambridge reinforces the city as a net importer of demand, and reduces South Cambs’ position as such slightly. The main effect is to increase the import of demand into Cambridge from outside the study area, particularly East Cambs.

Export

Import


Study area 16200 1.1m 71%Cambridge 8900 1.640000 71%South Cambs 7350 456000 70%England 70%


27

An increase in capacity over run 4 of 4% produces an overall increase in throughput of 3%, so most of the capacity is taken up by new demand, and there is little effect on existing halls. Most of this increase is in Cambridge where the hall is located, and there is a small decrease in South Cambs.

As a proportion of available capacity, total throughput remains ‘comfortable’ overall at 71% (about the national average). However the same effect as in run 4 applies here – newer halls are operating at absolute capacity, and indeed would be above this if the model permitted this, albeit that there is one more new hall, and the throughputs at all the new halls are slightly lower than in run 4. As previously despite this additional provision, they still result in some demand being denied because of lack of capacity, and these new facilities are not sufficient to meet all the new demand generated in 2021.

ATTR %% Demandof Capacity

Modified annual thro'put

CAMBRIDGE EAST 100 100.0 44561CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE 100 100.0 44561CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY 50 61.6 54909CHERRY HINTON VILLAGE CENTRE 75 92.0 44545CHESTERTON SPORTS CENTRE 45 55.9 61707HILLS ROAD SPORTS & TENNIS CENTRE 41 50.5 47261KELSEY KERRIDGE SPORTS CENTRE 48 59.7 90835MANOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 91 100.0 35241NETHERHALL SPORTS CENTRE 69 84.7 54622NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 100.0 86533PERSE SCHOOL 43 53.4 27689ST BEDES INTER CHURCH COMPREHENSIVE 46 57.0 29801THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 40 49.8 17237 BASSINGBOURN VILLAGE COLLEGE 93 100.0 73154CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE SPORT 100 100.0 77982COMBERTON LEISURE 33 40.9 44204COTTENHAM & DISTRICT SPORTS CENTRE 38 46.6 23216IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 40 49.8 31807LINTON COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE 38 62.6 39426MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 70 86.8 27797NORTHSTOWE 100 100.0 89122SAWSTON VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 28 34.6 39807SWAVESEY VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 23 40.9 9548

Relative ShareRelative share remains similar to run 4 where there is a positive share of halls over the whole study area compared with the national average, with the minor exception of the far NW corner bordering Huntingdon.

Summary of Run 5 Run 4 demonstrated that although the provision of 4 new sports halls (24 courts) increased

capacity by about a quarter, and that this represented about 1.5 times demand, satisfied demand increased by only 3%. Unmet demand was still high, the equivalent of a further 4 4-court halls, and was caused more by lack of capacity at the new facilities than residents living outside catchments. Throughput increased in proportion to capacity, but much of this was accommodated at new halls, all of which operated at or above their absolute capacity. Existing halls effectively lost usage to the attractive new facilities, and the additional demand created by the new housing population was not fully met.

The presence of a further hall at Cambridge East increases capacity over run 4 by about 4% (800 visits) and satisfied demand increase by about 150 visits, a higher proportion than with run 4


28

A new hall in Cambridge East (while not necessarily required to meet additional demand created in this area because of the existence of other halls in the area) improves walking accessibility throughout the whole study area, as there are now more halls each with their own local walking catchment.

Despite additional provision here, there is still relatively high unmet demand throughout the study area in similar locations as before, though to a smaller degree,

Overall throughput in the study area remains at comfortable levels, but some halls particularly the newer ones are operating at capacity.

The provision of a further hall in Cambridge East provides similar benefits to any new hall provision, and serves the locality well, particularly the new housing area, but fails to reduce unmet demand significantly. The same provisos as before exist – that a combination of new provision, of more smaller halls, rationalisation and refurbishment may offer an additional solution to future sports hall provision to 2021.

7. 2021 PROVISION WITH NEW HALLS AT NORTHSTOWE, CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE AND CAMBRIDGE EAST– RUN 6

IntroductionThis scenario sets out the 2021 situation analysed in Run 5, with existing facilities and four new halls at Northstowe, Regional College, Southern Fringe and Cambridge East, but with the exclusion of the hall at the University.__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

29

This section compares Run 6 with Runs 3, 4 and 5, and in particular Run 4, as it compares similar numbers of halls in the area, as a means of estimating the best approach to hall provision in 2021.



This scenario has the same number of halls as in Run 4 but a smaller (4%) capacity as the large hall proposed at the University is excluded. Of all the scenarios for future hall provision, this option has the lowest capacity, with only 22% more visits than at present..



Demand remains the same as in all 2021 scenarios, but as a proportion of supply is higher than any other scenario where new halls are proposed. Overall supply exceeds demand overall, and is below the 80% level considered comfortable.



Satisfied demand is the lowest of the three scenarios in runs 4-6, but remains higher than the national average. Compared with run 4 with a similar number of halls (although a slightly smaller capacity – 800 visits), satisfied demand is about 100 visits fewer.

The exclusion of the University has little impact on accessibility to halls. A hall in Cambridge East is more accessible by foot than the University hall, being surrounded by a large number of houses in the new growth area, but slightly reduces the accessibility of South Cambs residents overall.


30



The exclusion of the University hall slightly increases the reliance on car access to halls over runs 4 and 5.


The exclusion of the University hall results in the highest levels of unmet demand of any scenario, and this is about 300 visits per week higher than the best scenario (run 5) and 100 higher than 4.


31

This unmet demand is distributed across the study area and in similar locations to before (north and west of Cambridge and along the A14), with slightly higher values. The unmet demand is equivalent to 13 courts (compared with 11 and 12), and is in sufficient concentrations that additional halls provision can be justified. Similar comments as before can be made about the way forward to meet this demand.

As before unmet demand is caused by capacity constraints at new halls.



Cambridge 750 visits 10% 2200 27% 5900 79% +1450 +19%South Cambs 1900 25% 3100 41% 4350 59% +1200 +16%

The main effect of excluding the University hall is to reduce the export of demand from South Cambs to Cambridge as one hall fewer in the city is proposed. Both LAs remain net importers of demand.

Export

Import


Study area 15500 1.06m 72%Cambridge 8100 597000 74%South Cambs 7400 462000 71 %England 70%

The total throughputs in this option are the lowest in any scenario where new halls are proposed, but they represent the highest proportion of available capacity, although they are still within comfortable levels. There is a similar effect on existing facilities as before – their throughput is reduced as new halls absorb most of the new demand, to the extent that these operate at capacity.

ATTR %

% Demandof

CapacityModified annual

thro'put__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

32

CAMBRIDGE EAST 100 100.0 44561CAMBRIDGE SOUTHERN FRINGE 100 100.0 44561CHERRY HINTON VILLAGE CENTRE 75 95.1 46042CHESTERTON SPORTS CENTRE 45 57.8 63781HILLS ROAD SPORTS & TENNIS CENTRE 41 52.2 48849KELSEY KERRIDGE SPORTS CENTRE 48 61.7 93888MANOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE 91 100.0 35241NETHERHALL SPORTS CENTRE 69 87.5 56457NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 100.0 86533PERSE SCHOOL 43 55.2 28619ST BEDES INTER CHURCH COMPREHENSIVE 46 58.9 30802THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 40 51.4 17816 BASSINGBOURN VILLAGE COLLEGE 93 100.0 73154CAMBRIDGE REGIONAL COLLEGE SPORT 100 100.0 77982COMBERTON LEISURE 33 42.3 45684COTTENHAM & DISTRICT SPORTS CENTRE 38 48.2 23996IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 40 51.4 32876LINTON COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTRE 38 62.7 39466MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 70 89.7 28719NORTHSTOWE 100 100.0 89122SAWSTON VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 28 35.8 41143SWAVESEY VILLAGE COLLEGE SPORTS CENTRE 23 42.5 9930

Relative ShareThere is little change to relative share from runs 4 and 5, as almost all of the study area has better access to halls than the national average.

Summary of Run 6 Of all the new halls scenarios for, this option has the lowest capacity, with only 22% more than now Demand as a proportion of supply is the highest at 70% but well within comfort levels. Satisfied demand is the lowest, but overall halls are more accessible to walkers than option 4

because of the location of a new hall in the new growth area in Cambridge East compared with the University, though there is a slight reduction in overall accessibility among South Cambs residents

Unmet demand is the highest with an equivalent of 13 courts required overall, mainly due, as in all scenarios, to new halls attracting use from existing older ones and operating at capacity and therefore declining demand. Throughputs are lowest, but within comfort levels overall.

As with all scenarios, the provision of additional halls diverts demand from existing facilities and once full these are incapable of accommodating unmet demand arising from additional population. Additional measures are required in combination with new provision in the locations suggested, including refurbishment of existing halls, rationalisation and the provision of more but smaller halls in a variety of locations.

If only four new locations are required to meet future need, there is very little difference in the suitability of Cambridge East compared with the University hall. Cambridge East is more accessible on foot, and would have the main advantage of meeting the local needs of a new development area. The University hall would be more appropriate to meet a car-based usage. Perhaps as importantly, while the model has considered the community use of the University hall, this might depend in the longer term in negotiating a degree of community access that is compatible with the University’s main requirement to provide a facility for its own use.


33

8. COMPARISONS BETWEEN RUNS 4-6

Supply/capacityVisits per week Courts

Run 4 22000 98Run 5 23000 102Run 6 21450 94

Capacity is highest in run 5 with the provision of 5 additional halls (comprising 28 additional courts). The investment required to provide this level of capacity is necessarily significant, particularly as the University and Northstowe halls have 8 courts.

DemandDemand as % of supply

Run 4 67%Run 5 65%Run 6 70%

Demand is the same for all three runs but as a proportion of supply is lowest in run 5. In all scenarios, there is a surplus of supply over demand.

Satisfied demandVisits per week % of total demand

Run 4 13100 87%Run 5 13150 88%Run 6 12900 86%

Levels of satisfied demand are high in all scenarios, but highest in run 5. Despite an increased capacity of 1550 visits over run 5, run 5 only satisfies an additional 250 visits. Of those runs with similar numbers of halls (i.e. 4 and 6), satisfied demand is highest in run 6 – i.e. with the University hall compared with Cambridge East.

Accessibility/mode of transportIn all scenarios, there is 98% car accessibility to halls throughout the whole study area. Run 5 is marginally better for walking accessibility, due to the larger number of halls, and run 6 is better than 4 in this respect, as the halls is in the middle of a new housing growth area.

Unmet demandVisits per week % of total demand Courts required No go

Run 4 1950 13% 12 39%Run 5 1800 12% 11 40%Run 6 2050 14% 13 37%

Run 5 has the smallest amount of unmet demand but this is only 250 visits per week less than run 4 with a reduced capacity of 1550. In all cases unmet demand is caused by a lack of capacity at some halls, between 63% in run 6 and 60% in run 5. The levels of unmet demand in all cases justify additional halls in excess of those proposed between 11 and 13 courts in total.Throughput

Visits per week % of capacityRun 4 15750 71%Run 5 16200 71%Run 6 15550 71%

Throughput varies by only about 750 visits per week between runs 4 and 6, despite a capacity difference of 1550 visits. Throughput is higher in run 5 than 6 (with the same number of halls), but by


34

only a proportion of the additional capacity. In all cases throughput is about 71% of capacity and therefore at ‘comfortable’ levels, but individual halls, and in particular the new ones proposed, are at capacity as the model assumes they are more attractive to users than existing facilities. The level at which they exceed capacity is dependent on the total number of halls, and is lowest in run 5.

Export/importThere is little difference between the 3 scenarios in terms of import and export – the greater the number of halls in the study are, the higher the import of demand from outside.

Relative share Under all scenarios the whole study area (with a small exception in the far NW corner) has a higher share of halls than the national average.


35

9. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

1. Overall sports hall provision in the Cambridge area is almost exactly at the national average in terms of the number of courts per head of population. The study area has 0.29 courts per 1000 population compared with an England average of 0.29. The individual figures for Cambridge and South Cambs differ slightly – Cambridge has 0.37 courts and South Cambs 0.22.

2. Existing facilities in the study area are a variety of local authority, school and commercial sports halls, but with a heavy reliance on school facilities. There is 1 LA hall with 8 courts in total. 17 halls on school sites (albeit mostly joint provision and dual use) have 62 courts. Commercial provision is of 1 hall with 4 courts. While the attractiveness of the latter has been weighted to reflect its accessibility to the wider public, some provisos should be considered – in many locations, such provision will not in reality be available to the local catchment because of expensive membership or entrance fees, and in some locations may actually operate above comfortable capacity, as they may cater for after-work use, whereas the model assumes all trips are home based. Nevertheless the presence and influence of halls on commercial sites and in particular the use of school sites in dual use with significant community access must be carefully considered as part of overall provision.

3. Total capacity of existing halls in the Cambridge area (a combination of hall numbers, size and hours of availability) exceeds total demand, in this case by about 40% (or put another way, demand takes up only 2/3 of capacity). Satisfied demand (i.e. the proportion of the population who can gain access to a hall with some spare capacity) is slightly above the average, and this reflects the urban nature of Cambridge itself, with good access to local facilities, and high car ownership rates in South Cambs, which means that most residents are within the reasonable driving catchment of existing halls. Indeed over 90% of the population of the Cambridge area are within the catchment of at least 2 halls by car, and there is therefore some choice of where to participate. In Cambridge itself, 2/3 of the population has a choice of halls within walking distance.

4. However high the levels of satisfied demand, there will always be some unmet demand. Normally this is because residents live outside or on the edge of the walking or driving catchments of halls. Unusually, in the Cambridge area, only two thirds of this is for that reason. One third is derived from the lack of capacity at existing halls – that is, some halls are already operating full, and some people who live within a driving or walking catchment are declined use of the hall because of its capacity. Total unmet demand at present is the equivalent of about 7 courts (or 1.75 halls). This is distributed across much of the study area particularly on the edge of Cambridge to the north and west, along the A14 corridor towards Huntingdon, and north of Royston. However the highest concentration only amounts to about ½ of a hall and there is no one location at present where unmet demand is high enough to justify additional provision, even taking into account the declined demand mentioned above.

5. In the Cambridge area, as elsewhere, it is simply not feasible to achieve 100% satisfied demand. Diminishing returns set in as facilities increase in number. Increased hall provision reduces unmet demand by small amounts, and used capacity of halls elsewhere decreases. A proportion of demand at a new facility will come from unmet demand in the area, but the remainder will be diverted from other halls. A new hall for this reason alone is therefore not feasible at the present time.

6. The current throughput of existing halls in the area equates to about 70% of the available supply of courts. At the national average usage of 80%, there is therefore spare capacity overall (though not in some individual facilities), and further evidence that in quantitative terms at least existing provision for sports halls in the Cambridge area is adequate.

7. It is clear from the distribution of halls and population in the study area that Cambridge is an importer of demand for sports halls, and South Cambs an exporter – i.e. that Cambridge halls cater for demand in the city but also have an important role to play in satisfying the demand from residents living outside the city, in South Cambs and other surrounding local authority areas. Major investment in halls which caters for a significant proportion of residents from neighbouring districts


36

may not be a popular decision for some local authorities, though increased throughput from whatever source can be an attractive proposition when considering revenue costs.

8. The situation up to 2021 is different.. The increased population of about 64,000 (24%) increases demand by about 21%, only half of which can be absorbed by existing sports halls, as there is insufficient spare capacity in the right locations. Without the provision of additional halls, unmet demand increases by about 1250 visits per week (about 11%) to the equivalent of about 15 courts (or up to 4 halls in total). This is now in larger concentrations in some parts of the study area, particularly in areas of rapid housing development and where road access is good. In 2021 therefore additional sports hall provision is required in a number of locations to meet unmet demand arising from existing sports halls being used to capacity, and from additional residents in the area demanding more sports hall space.

9. The main requirement is to provide halls in locations which best meet these needs, and a number of new hall locations were tested in the model – Northstowe, Cambridge Regional College, Cambridge University, Cambridge Southern Fringe and Cambridge East. With individual runs testing more than 1 scenario, it is not possible to draw exact conclusions about the impact of individual hall sites, but the broad conclusions from the three main runs undertaken are as follows: The provision of five new halls in the locations mentioned above throughout the Cambridge

area increases capacity most, but the advantages of this must be considered alongside the cost of 5 new centres, particularly given that 2 of these have 8 courts each

All scenarios reduce demand as a proportion of supply to a level that is normally accepted as comfortable (i.e. below 80%). Because it has the highest capacity, the run which includes all 5 halls is best in this respect (run 5)

Levels of satisfied demand are also highest in this run, but it represents only a further 250 visits per week compared with run 6 which excludes the University hall. Satisfied demand is slightly higher with the University hall than Cambridge East, as there are other (albeit older) halls near the latter.

All scenarios improve accessibility by residents throughout the study area, but run 5 with most halls is marginally better for walking access owing to an additional walking catchment around the additional hall. Cambridge East is better in this respect than the University hall. Northstowe serves a good walking catchment (though this must be assumed as this cannot be isolated in the model)

Unmet demand is least with the most halls (run 5) though the number of courts required to serve this overall only varies between 11 and 13. With any new hall provision, there still remains unmet demand somewhere in the study area, which no amount of additional construction will meet in full

Throughput in any scenario varies only by about 700 visits per week, but the major factor is that in all options the newer halls are quickly used to capacity because of their relative attractiveness, and create their own unmet demand

10. None of the tested scenarios fully solves the problems of meeting demand in the right location up to 2021, mainly for the reason that the model attributes more usage to new facilities than older ones because of their relative attractiveness. By 2021 most of the existing halls will be 30 years old, some much older, and have a limited usefulness in meeting demand. The following observations might therefore be considered as a way forward for sports hall provision up to 2021: The provision of one new hall in each of the two main growth areas (Northstowe and

Cambridge East) would enable additional demand to be met in priority locations, particularly in areas of high growth, where walking access would be good. Northstowe is highlighted in run 3 as an area of high unmet demand, and an 8-court hall here would meet the needs primarily of the 10,000 houses planned as part of the development, particularly as much of the new development will be within a walking catchment. The model attributes rather wider usage than this from the surrounding area, but this pushes throughput over the absolute capacity. In reality this can be minimised by positive management and programming policies ensuring that the hall becomes the main focus for indoor sport in Northstowe itself. This however leaves a proportion of unmet demand (from a wider driving catchment) which must be met elsewhere and this is considered below


37

Cambridge East would satisfy the same conditions as Northstowe, though the model does not highlight this area as such a priority for additional hall space in 2021, because there are other halls nearby which could accommodate additional use arising from this development area. However the development of a 4-court hall here would similarly serve the needs of the new housing development, which in this case comprises 11-12000 houses. The model however also suggests that this would operate at capacity and additional halls would be required to relieve this.

The Cambridge Southern Fringe hall is similarly placed to meet specifically the needs of the new local community living in the new development, in an area of the city not currently well served by sports halls

Similarly, Cambridge Regional College is one of only two locations north of the city to meet local demand particularly from walkers, and an enhanced hall here would accommodate exiting and future demand, particularly from new development areas nearby such as Arbury.

The proposed University hall, with 8 courts, is not so well located to meet a local walking demand, although the model suggests that it would be well used primarily because it is well located to serve a driving catchment. Its future usefulness in meeting demand would depend to a great extent on the amount of community usage that was negotiated by the local authorities with the University. The model suggests that there is limited sense in providing all the halls proposed in option 5, because there is a diminishing return in terms of meeting overall demand. The University hall is probably least well placed to meet this demand, particularly if community access at the appropriate times is subject to overriding University requirements.

Under any of the scenarios however, because of the variation in ages of existing and proposed new halls, and their relative attractiveness, even the provision of the 5 halls tested would leave some demand unmet, and additional provision therefore needs to be considered. This appraisal does not address other options such as the rationalisation, refurbishment or closure of existing halls in the area, nor the possibility of alternative means of meeting demand, by providing a number of smaller halls in more locations, which would have the effect of absorbing more local walking demand. Further analysis of these options might be necessary in the future, but this is outside the scope of the current exercise.

11. The application of the model and the results of this study must only be considered as providing overall strategic context to future investment decisions on halls by local authorities and others. Any solution to future provision of sports halls in the Cambridge area may need to consider other scenarios. This strategic assessment provides one indicator of the future need for and location of halls, and some solutions may involve new halls, rationalisation and replacement as set out. Alternative means of meeting demand and providing opportunities for indoor sport should also be considered – these might include improved transport options to reduce unmet demand among walkers in particular areas of the area, particularly the city, or the negotiation of increased community access which takes up spare capacity at schools, or even commercial health and fitness facilities. Any consideration of future sports hall provision in the Cambridge area also needs to take into account other wider factors not considered in this assessment –sports development considerations, opportunities for purpose built facilities for competition, the role of sports facilities in contributing towards urban and community regeneration projects and other wider benefits, the development of sustainable new communities which provide new housing areas with essential community facilities, the need to ensure that all facilities are inclusive to the whole population and social and cultural considerations not addressed here.

Michael Presland, Genesis Consulting for Sport EnglandJune 2008


38

APPENDIX 4 RUN SPECIFICATION AND RULE FILTERS

Study Area:Cambridge

South Cambridgeshire

Rule Filter to be applied to all Runs Include all Operational sports halls available for community use i.e. pay and play, membership, Sports

Club/Community Association Exclude all halls not available for community use i.e. private use Exclude all halls of less than 3 court size, unless on the same site as a hall of 3 courts or larger Where opening times are missing, assume:

Local Authority sites – Mon-Fri 9am-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pmSchool sites – Mon-Fri 4pm-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pm

Where year built is missing, assume date is 1975. Full Community Hours for proposals, if not specified, are:

Local Authority sites – Mon-Fri 9am-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pm. 52hrs in peak/83hrs total.School sites – Mon-Fri 4pm-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pm. 44hrs in peak/48hrs total.

DatabaseActive Places Database as at March 2008, including changes notified by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council.

Attractiveness Weightings Model default weightings to be used for all runs. All existing facilities to retain 2008 weightings for all 2021 runs.

Population projections:ONS population projection for the following;

Runs 1and 2 2008

Cambridgeshire County Council population projections (as supplied) R3-R6 (inc) 2021

Commitments in adjoining area to be included within Runs 3-6 as per Appendix 1:

New 4-court sports hall with full community access at Cambridge Regional College (Grid Ref ……..) New 4 court sports hall with full community access at Cambridge Southern Fringe development (Grid

Ref 545413 254545) New 8 court hall at Cambridge University with full community access (Grid Ref 542524 259125) New 8 court hall at Northstowe with full community access (Grid Ref 541100 266360) New 4 court hall at Cambridge East with full community access (Grid Ref 549045 258904)

Outputs Full outputs for all Local Authorities within the study areas within each run. Maps - location/walking catchment, unmet demand, aggregated unmet demand, relative share.

RUN SCHEDULE

RUN 1: Existing position -2008 (unweighted)Current supply of sports halls (with updated/checking of existing facilities data) based on 2008 population estimates (unweighted).RUN 2: Existing Provision -2008 (weighted)As Run 1, but with standard weightings

For Runs 1 and 2 include new 4 court sports hall (594m2) and associated 1 court hall (180m2) at Bassingbourn College (Facility ID 2215403) with standard school access (standard default opening times – 44 hours/48 hours) – due to open April 2008. __________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

39

RUN 3: Scenario 1 - 2021As Run 2, but with 2021 population projections added

RUN 4: Scenario 2 - 2021As Run 3, with: OPEN:

New 4 court sports hall (594m2) with standard school opening times (44 hours/48 hours) at Cambridge Regional College (Facility ID 2004443)

New 4 court sports hall (594m2) with standard school opening times (44 hours/48 hours) at Cambridge Southern Fringe development (Grid Ref 545413 254545)

New 8 court hall at Cambridge University (1188m2) (with standard school default opening times) (Grid Ref 542524 259124)

New 8 court hall at Northstowe (1188m2) with standard school opening times (44 hours/48 hours)(Grid Ref 541100 266360)

RUN 5: Scenario 3 - 2021As Run 4, with:

OPEN: Cambridge East – New 4 court hall with standard school opening hours (44 hours/48 hours) (Grid Ref 549045 258904)

RUN 6: Scenario 4 - 2021As Run 5, with:CLOSED: Cambridge University – 8 Court Hall, as included in Runs 4 and 5.


40

APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY TABLES

FPM AREAHALLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 257851 257851 322150 322150 322150 322150Demand Visits per week in the peak period 12396 12396 14953 14953 14953 14953annual equivalent 1033028 1033028 1246100 1246100 1246100 1246100Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 11703 11314 12564 13010 13170 12897As a % of peak period demand 94.4 91.3 84 87 88.1 86.2annual equivalent 975264 942858 1046980 1084184 1097507 1074738Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 83.9 83.9 84 83 82.8 82.8Public Transport % 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3walkers % 12.8 12.7 12.7 13.7 13.9 13.9Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 693 1082 2389 1943 1783 2056annual equivalent 57763 90170 199120 161916 148593 171362Courts required to satisfy this 4.3 6.7 14.7 12.0 11.0 12.7No go as % unmet 100 65.2 35.9 38.7 40.4 36.5No go (car) as % nogo 13.1 12.9 13.8 12.3 12.7 13.3No go (no car) as % nogo 86.9 87.1 86.2 87.7 87.3 86.7Site Summary Information Sites 19 19 19 22 23 22Courts 74 74 74 98 102 94Visits per week in the peak period 17511 17511 17511 22221 23001 21441modified annual equivalent 1304987 1304987 1304987 1558560 1603121 1513999standard annual equivalent 1459208 1459208 1459208 1851708 1916708 1786708Capacity used - vpwpp 12924 12205 13196 15769 16220 15511As a % of available capacity 73.8 69.7 75.4 71 70.5 72.3Modified annual throughput 959848 902407 970260 1074704 1095564 1059224Standardised annual throughput 1076997 1017100 1099650 1314101 1351643 1292610Visits by Car as % all 85.3 85 84.6 85.7 85.7 85.4Visits by PubTrans as % all 3.1 3.2 3.2 3 2.9 2.9Visits on Foot as % all 11.6 11.8 12.1 11.4 11.4 11.6Import/Export Summary Demand exported as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0Demand imported as % satisfied capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0Demand retained as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0Net import (+) or net export (-) 0 0 0 0 0 0as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0


41

CAMBRIDGE FPM ANALYSIS FOR HALLS - SUMMARY TABLESCAMBRIDGEHALLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 118623 118623 149410 149410 149410 149410Demand Visits per week in the peak period 6125 6125 7518 7518 7518 7518annual equivalent 510439 510439 626492 626492 626492 626492Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 5789 5603 6414 6703 6760 6645As a % of peak period demand 94.5 91.5 85.3 89.2 89.9 88.4annual equivalent 482442 466913 534508 558574 563301 553769Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 72.4 72.5 72.8 72.2 71.8 71.9Public Transport % 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1walkers % 22.1 22 21.8 22.6 23 22.9Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 336 522 1104 815 758 873annual equivalent 27996 43526 91984 67918 63191 72723Courts required to satisfy this 2.1 3.2 6.8 5.0 4.7 5.4No go as % unmet 100 66.6 38.1 46.7 47 42.8No go (car) as % nogo 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3No go (no car) as % nogo 97.8 97.8 97.7 97.7 97.6 97.7Site Summary Information Sites 10 10 10 12 13 12Courts 44 44 44 56 60 52Visits per week in the peak period 9367 9367 9367 11707 12487 10927modified annual equivalent 729505 729505 729505 863188 907749 818627standard annual equivalent 780542 780542 780542 975542 1040542 910542Capacity used - vpwpp 6805 7008 7717 8343 8887 8092As a % of available capacity 72.6 74.8 82.4 71.3 71.2 74.1Modified annual throughput 529985 547050 599248 612012 639502 597151Standardised annual throughput 567062 584008 643075 695213 740597 674361Visits by Car as % all 77 78 77.3 77.9 78.7 77.3Visits by PubTrans as % all 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.1 4.2Visits on Foot as % all 18.4 17.5 18.2 17.8 17.2 18.5Import/Export Summary Demand exported 600 380 566 743 740 737as % demand 9.8 6.2 7.5 9.9 9.8 9.8Demand imported 1616 1786 1869 2382 2867 2184as % satisfied capacity 23.7 25.5 24.2 28.6 32.3 27Demand retained 5189 5223 5848 5960 6020 5908as % demand 84.7 85.3 77.8 79.3 80.1 78.6Net import (+) or net export (-) 1015 1405 1303 1640 2128 1447as % demand 16.6 22.9 17.3 21.8 28.3 19.2

CAMBRIDGE FPM ANALYSIS FOR HALLS - SUMMARY TABLESSOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIRE__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Sports Halls Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

42

HALLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 139227 139227 172740 172740 172740 172740Demand Visits per week in the peak period 6271 6271 7435 7435 7435 7435annual equivalent 522589 522589 619608 619608 619608 619608Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 5914 5711 6150 6307 6410 6252As a % of peak period demand 94.3 91.1 82.7 84.8 86.2 84.1annual equivalent 492822 475945 512472 525610 534205 520968Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 95.1 95.1 95.7 94.5 94.4 94.4Public Transport % 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.3walkers % 3.6 3.6 3.1 4.1 4.3 4.3Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 357 560 1286 1128 1025 1184annual equivalent 29767 46644 107136 93998 85402 98639Courts required to satisfy this 2.2 3.5 7.9 7.0 6.3 7.3No go as % unmet 100 63.9 34 33 35.6 31.8No go (car) as % nogo 23.4 23.4 24.8 22.6 22.8 24.1No go (no car) as % nogo 76.6 76.6 75.2 77.4 77.2 75.9Site Summary Information Sites 9 9 9 10 10 10Courts 30 30 30 42 42 42Visits per week in the peak period 8144 8144 8144 10514 10514 10514modified annual equivalent 575481 575481 575481 695372 695372 695372standard annual equivalent 678667 678667 678667 876167 876167 876167Capacity used - vpwpp 6119 5197 5479 7427 7333 7419As a % of available capacity 75.1 63.8 67.3 70.6 69.7 70.6Modified annual throughput 429863 355357 371012 462691 456063 462073Standardised annual throughput 509935 433092 456574 618889 611045 618249Visits by Car as % all 94.5 94.6 94.8 94.3 94.1 94.3Visits by PubTrans as % all 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5Visits on Foot as % all 4 4.1 3.6 4.1 4.3 4.1Import/Export Summary Demand exported 2064 2194 2471 2029 2163 1887as % demand 32.9 35 33.2 27.3 29.1 25.4Demand imported 2269 1679 1800 3148 3085 3055as % satisfied capacity 37.1 32.3 32.9 42.4 42.1 41.2Demand retained 3850 3518 3679 4279 4247 4364as % demand 61.4 56.1 49.5 57.5 57.1 58.7Net import (+) or net export (-) 205 -514 -671 1119 922 1167as % demand 3.3 -8.2 -9 15.1 12.4 15.7


43

€¦ · Web viewCambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire District Council. SPORTS HALLS...

Documents

Transcript of €¦ · Web viewCambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire District Council. SPORTS HALLS...