Surrey Heath Liberal Democrat Council Group

This is a web page preview of a Microsoft Word document from the Surrey Heath Liberal Democrats site. It is generated by a computer and is not manually edited. Formatting and content may be displayed differently to the original document, and should not be regarded as definitive.

This is the report of the Liberal Democrat Skateboard Working Party. It represents the views of the Working Party, but does not represent settled policy of either the Liberal Democrat Council Group, or Surrey Heath Constituency Liberal Democrats until so adopted by them. It is issued for the purposes of consultation with interested parties.

The Working Party has concluded that provision for skateboard and associated sports is poor in Surrey Heath, both in absolute terms as well as by comparison with other parts of the South East. It therefore proposes:

It is proposed that the ongoing management of at least the central facility be placed in the hands of a management Committee, with representatives of the Users, local residents, and other interested parties.

The costs of provision of these facilities are estimated a £234,000 with the likelihood of at least £67,000 being available through grants. Maintenance costs of £5,000 per year could be mitigated by 50% through sponsorship income. Renewal costs are also discussed.

This report is being circulated to all interested parties we are aware of. Comments are sought by 30^th November, 2003.

Skateboarding is not a temporary fad. It is an activity that has a history of over 25 years. There are professional skateboarders who make a considerable income from giving demonstrations of their skill. Besides a primary industry providing the ramps and other equipment and the skateboards themselves, there are secondary industries focussed on skateboarding, be it videos, games and music or the already considerable and growing fashion accessory ranges.

Skateboarding is widely recognised now as mainstream. Most public authorities acknowledge the need to provide facilities in this area. Sport England recognises the provision of facilities in this area as a valid subject for grant support. Skateboarding is clearly associated with other activities generically entitled “extreme sports”. Freestyle BMX, and inline skating are two such. All these activities are strongly associated with youth culture.

Surrey Heath however is lacking both in skateboarding facilities, as well as other youth facilities. Whilst not every individual in the 10-18 age group is a keen skateboarder, these centres act as a social focus as well as an activity centre. Whilst we are convinced that the vast majority of Surrey Heath's young people are responsible in their attitudes and demeanour, we accept that it is difficult for the under 18s in the Borough to find accessible and affordable leisure activities. Surrey Heath Borough Council should be doing more to address these difficulties.

In 2002, Surrey Heath Liberal Democrats adopted as a Manifesto commitment that a well-established and central SkatePark should be provided for the residents of Surrey Heath. This report is intended to act as a discussion paper to update that commitment with a wider strategy for skateboarding provision in Surrey Heath.

The authors have circulated this report to various groups for consultation, and would welcome input on all aspects of the report: its assumptions, its costings and its conclusions. Such comments are sought by November, 30^th, 2003 and should be sent to:

Alan Whittart: (Convenor ) Leisure Portfolio, Shadow Executive, and Borough Councillor for Frimley Green

Bob Smith Corporate Portfolio, Shadow Executive (including Youth matters) and Borough Councillor for Parkside

The Working Party would like to thank the following groups for input that has been utilised either directly in this report or in the considerations that have led to its conclusions:

We should like to note in particular the report of research carried out by ABA Research Ltd on behalf of Surrey Heath Borough Council at the 2002 SkateFest held at the Arena Leisure Centre.

The Borough has little in the way of formal skateboarding provision currently. There are two half-pipes, located at:

The Crabtree Park facility is a single half-pipe standing in an isolated position. It is of metal construction, a material not favoured by skateboard users. The area is not lit. The facility is small, and challenging for a hesitant boarder. It is easily dominated by a single small group of older youths. It is well away from any populated area and also not near any community facility that might provide informal supervision. The nearest facility nearby that might render assistance in the event of emergency is the Sainsbury's supermarket over the railway bridge in Watchmoor Park. This is also the nearest source of toilets or refreshments.

The Mytchett facility is in the recreation ground in Hamesmoor Road. Whilst also consisting of a single half-pipe, the location does have the benefit of being frequently visited by members of the Bowls Club, tennis players and local residents who use the toddler play area. It is reasonably centrally located for the area it serves, with adequate facilities for dropping-off and picking-up. Public transport however can be difficult.

However, our conclusion is that the most popular skateboarding facility in the Borough is the car park of Surrey Heath House in Camberley! This area is centrally located, of good size, and is accessible to skateboarders of a wide range of abilities.

In this section we consider the key requirements that the facilities and management arrangements for skateboarding provision in Surrey heath should satisfy.

It is essential for a number of reasons for the community to be involved with the establishment, and operation of the skateboard facilities. Such involvement includes but goes beyond the involvement of users. It must also involve parents, local residents (especially those in the immediate vicinity of the facilities), and other groups interested in youth matters - the Police, for example.

Users will be interested in the design of the facility, and any restrictions on its use. Parents will be concerned with the safety of the facility, and protection from anti-social behaviour that may develop around the facility. Residents will be keen to minimise the nuisance to themselves. All these are valid interests.

It is essential that the facilities to be provided are geographically situated as to be accessible to the target users. In reality, this means within walking distance of railway stations, or on bus routes. Many will be given lifts to reach the facility. This implies easy access for cars with adequate space for dropping-off and picking-up.

It also implies that a number of facilities spread across the Borough will be required. There are after all, skateboarders in Lightwater as well as in Camberley.

It is essential to have facilities both for beginners, as well as others that are challenging even for experienced boarders. Whilst there need to be facilities within each site for a range of abilities, it is not essential that every site has facilities for the entire range of abilities. Indeed, it is advisable for each site to have its own character and style at least partially set by users in the local area to that site. This will lead to greater ownership of the site and fewer problems.

Facilities for skateboarding in Surrey Heath are of interest to and perhaps concern to a far wider group than the skateboarders that may use the facilities. The location of such facilities must take into account the legitimate concerns of local residents in the area. These matters are properly taken care of during the planning consent process.

The facilities must be managed to promote inclusion, rather than being dominated by any one particular age or user group. Groups that may need to be considered include:

It is suggested that facilities may be reserved at certain times for exclusive use e.g. for beginners, and certain groups may be permitted subsidised use.

The Working Party believes that partnership with the commercial sector can make available significantly improved facilities at no additional cost to the community. It can also provide access to professional management expertise that would otherwise be unavailable to the public sector.

The Working Party is more than open to such partnerships in relation both to the supply and the on-going management of such facilities.

The Working Party believes that central to the strategy for the provision of a skateboarding facility in Surrey Heath should be the establishment of a substantial central facility of comparable size to the facility in Farnborough.

In the event that the large indoor facility mooted by Cable Culture goes ahead, this facility would serve to meet this need. This statement forms a basis for a contribution by SHBC to the indoor facility, should it be deemed appropriate by both parties.

It is proposed that if a separate facility is established, it should be a supervised facility. This would imply that an entrance fee would need to be charged to cover the cost of this.

The large facility would need to be designed to challenge serious and experienced skateboarders, and having facilities also for less experienced users.

A central location would be essential for this facility. We are aware of at least two possible locations:

The London Road site in particular has a number of advantages. It is central and within a reasonable distance of bus and rail links. The existence of the Leisure Centre provides a source for supervision, toilet facilities and refreshment. It is also well frequented, and it is our opinion that the more public and frequented the site, the less of a problem vandalism and similar behaviour will be.

Camberley Park has the advantage of central location, but is not as well served with nearby facilities to act as a source for supervision.

Less challenging facilities need to be provided more widely throughout the Borough. These satellite facilities need to be accessible but can serve a smaller area than the central facility. They should in particular have much more provision for inexperienced users.

This report proposes a number of such facilities. These facilities should be enhanced to provide low-level street furniture type facilities. Such additions can be added relatively inexpensively. These sites should be open and unmanaged.

We suggest that an upgrade of the existing facilities at Mytchett would be advantageous. A preferable alternative to the upgrading of the Crabtree site is the establishment of a small facility in Heatherside. Heatherside was identified by SHBC's own research as one where there is significant demand for such a facility, whilst the Crabtree site has too many drawbacks to recommend it for further investment.

The third facility would be a new facility serving the villages of Surrey Heath. A potential site is at the Briar's Centre, where there is space, and access to potential supervision. However, discussions have suggested that a site in Lightwater playing fields area , in proximity to the current Leisure Centre could meet our criteria. Initial discussions have suggested that the Lightwater Playing Fields Association might be interested in participating in the establishment and management of such a facility. If so, a managed facility might be appropriate. In either case, a facility comparable to the upgraded Mytchett or new Heatherside site is envisaged.

It is important that these satellite facilities each have their own characters, and are not simply carbon copies. Each should result from consultations within the local area, and involve local users on both the design and implementation of the facility.

It is proposed to provide a set of portable ramps and similar equipment. Such equipment could be used to add skateboarding as an added attraction at another event, be that indoor or outdoor. The equipment could also be used at any of the many school fetes and related community events across the Borough. It could even be used on a regular basis on car parks which are not heavily used on a Sunday.

We propose that whilst grant funding is sought for the central facility, two satellite facilities are planned and put in place.

Discussions with Lightwater Playing Fields Association could also begin, with the aim of establishing this site by next Spring.

Our information from other areas is that the central facility is likely to take 12 to 18 months to establish. All the more reason to start now.

Cable Culture is a local company with ambitions to provide various “extreme” sporting facilities generally within 50 miles of Camberley. However, such facilities are intended to be established on a strictly commercial footing.

Cable Culture have proposed the establishment of a large (5000sq ft) indoor skateboarding facility in the Surrey Heath area. Significant study and effort has been expended on the design and potential location of such a facility. A business model has been worked out, and a business plan established.

If established, the indoor facility would include associated facilities besides the skateboard ramps. There would be catering and sports clothing outlets. The centre would act on occasion as a centre for social events, and even for national competitive events, which would be likely to be televised. In short, it would offer a facility unparalleled in the area and would act as a focus for skateboarding over a wide area.

The Working Party has met with Cable Culture and discussed these plans. The Working Party is enthusiastic in its support for this facility, though could not endorse it until more detail is available concerning the proposed location and management of the facility.

One thing is clear: this strategy cannot ignore an initiative which, if it is successful would make an enormous contribution to the provision of youth facilities in this area, and bring great prestige to the Borough.

No discussions have been held concerning possible partnership arrangements in the provision of such facility. The Working Party was open to such an arrangement, but recognised that such joint responsibility might lead to a reduction in the flexibility and agility that a commercial organisation needs to be successful

A degree of promotion is suggested in order to ensure that an active and involved user base exists to make use of the facilities provided and is included in its development. On this basis, grant funding and guidance should be available to the Surrey Heathens to assist in their development. SHBC is currently assisting and supporting this group with officer time, and we commend the efforts of the individual concerned.

The SkateFest 2002 was a great success. We recommend that it be turned into an annual event.

A premier summer event might usefully be added, utilising the portable facilities proposed above…”Skate in the Park”? Perhaps this might be added to the Frimley Lodge Park type event that has already been held.

Skateboarding and related sports are particularly popular in the sub-teen age group, a group not particularly well catered for in the current Action Holiday scheme. Positive action should be taken to put into place coaching schemes for next summer.

Coaching schemes could be based on one or more of the outdoor skate facilities, or possibly (though not preferred) using the portable equipment at a Leisure Centre or Community Centre.

Ownership by the community and by the users is key to the success of such facilities. For this reason we are proposing that the central skatepark is NOT managed by SHBC Leisure Services, but by an independent community-based management committee with representatives from at least the following groups:

The Management Committee would need to be established with a constitution that should be approved by SHBC. As part of further development of its partnership approach to working with other organisations within the local community, we feel sure that this approach would be beneficial to SHBC as well as to the aims of the project.

We recognise that SHBC Leisure Services is the only body capable of project managing the implementation.

We believe that ongoing maintenance and management of the facility may be delegated either to a private organisation or to Leisure Services under a formal SLA (i.e. one which has both targets and contractual status).

Should the Lightwater managed facility prove feasible, representation from the Parish council should also be sought on its Management body.

This section does NOT purport to provide detailed costings for the establishment and maintenance of the facilities proposed in this report. The reason for this is two-fold:

Further, whilst we have indicated potential sources of funds, this report does not attempt to fully describe how the proposed expenditure will be funded. Again, we deem this outside the scope of this report at this stage.

From information gained, we have adopted the following as budgetary estimates for the provision of the various facilities:

These estimates make no allowance for additional project management effort by SHBC, or for land acquisition, as all the proposed facilities are for areas already in SHBC ownership. However, we deem it wise to provide for additional funding of £4,000 for events and promotion in the first year, to ensure early take-up of the new facilities.

We are advised that there is a wide range of organisations from which grant funding for facilities such as these can be sought. Lottery funding through Sport England is a good example. Other channels to be considered are from organisations supporting facilities for youth, and those concerned with community safety. We are aware of the Police making grants to SkatePark provision in other areas, for example, and we are also aware of significant contributions made by S.C. Johnson's for youth facilities in this area.

Such organisations will be very careful to ensure that there is full involvement by both the users and the wider community in the design, implementation and ongoing management of the facilities funded. We feel that whilst the upgrading of satellite facilities might be seen by such bodies as a direct local Council responsibility, the possibilities to gain matching funding for a central facility are good. We also believe that the portable facilities and promotional funds could be added to the central facilities and a bid made on this basis.

Accordingly we believe that grant financing of at least £67,000 is likely to be available on a match funding basis, leaving the net capital sum to be contributed by SHBC as £167,000. If contributed from capital reserves, this would lead to a loss of annual interest of £8,350.

We are aware that SHBC is proposing to spend £60,000 on skateboarding facilities. This sum is derived from money made available when the Sainsbury's supermarket was first built at Watchmoor Park. This and similar funds could be used to fund this strategy. If the Renewal Strategy proposed below were to be followed, a further £48,000 would be available.

Remaining funding would need to be funded from sale of council land (such as Doman Road, projected for later this year), from developer contributions, or from reserves.

Using evidence from SHBC and from other councils, we estimate the maintenance costs of the above facilities as around £2,000 per annum for the central site, and £1,000 each per annum for the satellite sites. These figures cover operational costs for the unattended sites as well, as these facilities are in existing SHBC maintained areas.

SHBC is currently carrying out a strategic review of playground provision in Surrey Heath. We believe that this review should investigate and identify underused equipment and sites currently provided. Such a situation may arise because of inappropriate siting, or demographic change in the area served. We are aware of at least one example of this, and suspect there are others. Rationalisation of such sites may therefore lead to the release of funds to assist in the maintenance of these new facilities. However, we cannot assume savings at any particular level until the review has been carried out.

We believe that sponsorship will be an option at least for the central site. We believe it is feasible therefore that at least half of these maintenance costs can be covered from this source.

We have studied figures from a recently completed managed outdoor skateboard site in another area which raise in our minds some doubt as to whether a managed facility could be financially viable. This facility would require charges of some £4 per session (each session being some 3 hours long), with a target of some 9,000 visits per year to breakeven.

The report by ABA Research noted earlier suggests that pricing of £1 per hour would be acceptable to users, and £2 per hour would be possible for a challenging site. However, this leads to a dependence on user numbers that cannot be guaranteed.

We believe therefore that it is important that a managed facility be operated in association with another facility. This is likely to make the financial model rather more robust as in this way, the costs of supervision are shared with another facilities. This model is clearly viable in the context of facilities at Lightwater Playing Fields Leisure Centre or near the Arena Leisure Centre. We also note that the Arena management contract is coming up for renewal, and suggest that SHBC investigates a “bundling” of this with the management of a adjacent skatepark, if this location proves suitable.

We therefore assume here that as a minimum, any managed site would have charges set to at least cover its operational costs. Whilst additional income may be possible (either in higher usage fees or through special events) - and indeed likely - they are not taken into account here.

We should emphasise that the management of a facility by a private concern must not weaken community ownership. Such management would hence be working to an agreed Service Level Agreement with the Management Committee.

There is currently a debate in progress at SHBC concerning the appropriate provision for future renewal of leisure facilities. We take the view here that making an annual contribution to a sinking fund is appropriate to fund a single renewal of a facility, but building reserves to ensure that funds are available for perpetual renewal is both financially unreasonable as well as being logically flawed.

On the basis of the normal SHBC assumptions concerning investment return (5%) and annual inflation (2%), and a planned lifetime of the facility of 15 years, it will be necessary either to set aside a further £12,000 per annum in revenue costs to fund this renewal in 15 year's time.

We believe capital provision of £167,000 would provide for the facilities described in this report. This would result in loss of interest of £8,350 per annum.

If a capital sum were needed to generate the income to cover Recurrent and Renewal Costs, an additional capital sum (or alternatively an earmarked element of the existing reserves) of £184,000 would be required.

In October 1999, the City of Christchurch in New Zealand published its “Skateboarding, Inline Skating and Freestyle BMX Cycling Strategy”. Through the medium of Internet research, we have access to this strategy, and quote here the key principles upon which their strategy was based:

“Skaters should be able to have reasonable access to quality facilities which are enjoyable, challenging, cater to a broad range of skills, well-maintained and which minimise risk of injury or harm.

Council should respect the knowledge, skills and opinions of skaters and allow opportunity for involvement in facility planning decisions.

Council should cater for skater needs as much as possible through facilities designed to offer broad appeal and able to be altered and/or extended to meet changing demands.

Skate facilities and access ways should be designed to minimise negative impacts on non-users.

Participation in skate pursuits should be encouraged by Council via support of special events and promotions and of skills development workshops and groups.

Trends in skating should be monitored and facility planning undertaken to cater for changing needs.”

Printed, published and promoted by Bob Smith, 34, Station Road, Frimley, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 7HF