Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities ... - Brent Council

Planning for Sport and Active
Recreation Facilities Strategy
2008 - 2021

Foreword
I was extremely pleased when in 2007 Sport England invited Brent to pilot their
proposed new approach to planning for sport and recreation facilities. Taking part
in a pilot gave us the opportunity to bring together the key stakeholders in Brent
who play a role in the current and future provision of sports facilities in the Borough.
By undertaking a comprehensive audit of provision, considering future trends
and identifying future needs with the use of Sport England’s planning tools, the
stakeholders have compiled this ‘Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities
Strategy 2008 2021’.
I am delighted that Brent now has this strategic document that identifies priorities
for future indoor and outdoor sports provision in the Borough. This will give strategic
direction to all providers of sports facilities in Brent and help us provide better quality
and additional facilities in areas of greatest need. This in turn will encourage and
enable Brent’s population to become more active and live a healthier lifestyle.
I am proud that Brent was selected as a pilot by Sport England and that we were also the first pilot authority in England
to have its strategy completed and endorsed by Members. I hope you find the information contained within this
strategy interesting and useful.
Councillor Irwin Van Colle,
Lead Member for Environment, Planning and Culture.

Foreword from Sport England
In June 2006, the Audit Commission’s report; “Public sports and recreation services
– making them fit for the future” made a number of criticisms regarding the
strategic planning of facilities, resulting in poor provision in terms of location,
quality and failure to meet changing needs and customer expectations. The report’s
recommendations identified a need to ensure that Local Authorities improved
their strategic planning of sport and recreation provision by assessing current and
future needs, collaborating with other sectors and working across boundaries in the
procurement, planning and delivery of services. In addition, there was a need for
Local Authorities to appraise options for facility provision in a transparent way, testing
the market to ensure that the best options were identified.
Traditional means of facility funding, such as the Lottery is diminishing. Although new
investment is occurring via Building Schools for the Future (BSF), Planning Gain and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI),
without a clear strategic vision and direction at the local level, the impact of such investment will fail to be maximised.
Sport England’s Facilities Improvement Service aims to help local authorities improve the ways in which they plan for
sport and recreation, enabling them to use key strategic planning tools such as Active Places Power which will allow
authorities to develop a robust understanding and assessment of need which will then underpin Local Authorities
planning for sport.
In order to launch the Facilities Improvement Service in London, Sport England made an approach to the London
borough of Brent and offered the opportunity to help pilot the service. Sport England is extremely grateful to Brent,
for not only taking on the Service as a pilot authority but particularly for the highly professional approach made by the
Council in it’s dealings with Sport England and Sport England’s selected contractor, Genesis Consulting. We are very
conscious of the pressures being placed on Local Government during these difficult times, so we congratulate Brent for
not only stepping up to this challenge, but also for producing a very comprehensive piece of work that will serve Brent
well in it’s future planning for sport and active recreation in the lead up to 2012 and will act as a case study for other
authorities to follow and to learn from this good practice.
Andy Sacha
Head of Investment: London Region

Executive Summary
Chapter One Introduction 7
Chapter Two A profile of Brent 11
Chapter Three Strategic context 25
Chapter Four Market segmentation 33
Chapter Five Planning Tools 41
Chapter Six Indoor and Outdoor sports facility provision 45
Chapter Seven Priorities for future provision 87
Chapter Eight Local standards 97
Chapter Nine Delivery 105
Chapter Ten Review and monitoring 110
List of maps, graphs and tables 111
Contents

1
In early 2007, Sport England approached Brent Council to become
a pilot in their Local Sport and Recreation Strategic Support
Programme. The Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities
Strategy 2008 - 2021 is the outcome of this work.
The overall vision for the strategy is:
To ensure the co-ordinated, strategic development of formal and
informal facilities for sport and active recreation within Brent
that meets the needs of a changing multi cultural population
and provides attractive, sustainable, accessible, quality facilities
that enhances the Boroughs natural and built environment. Such
provision will increase opportunities for participation in sport and
active recreation by all sections of the community resulting in
improved health, well being and enhanced quality of life of
Brent’s residents.
The purpose of this strategy is to set out a plan for the development
of sports facilities in the borough and proposes local planning
standards. The scope of facilities considered includes sports and
leisure centres, swimming pools, sports halls, health and fitness,
athletics, bowls, tennis, squash, synthetic turf pitches, netball courts
and multi use games areas. All sports facility providers have been
included in this scope including those provided by the private sector,
voluntary and community sector and other public providers, as well as
facilities within neighbouring boroughs.
To develop the strategy it was necessary to commission three reports.
The first reviewed all indoor sports facilities within the borough and
outlined development options for three Brent Council sports centres
(Bridge Park, Charteris and Vale Farm). The second comprised of an
audit of all outdoor sport facilities and the third was the undertaking
of the Facilities Planning Model for swimming pools and sports halls.
Consultation on this strategy included presentations and workshops
with key stakeholders and wide circulation of the draft strategy for
feedback. The findings from the three reports and comments arising
from the consultation have informed the final version of this strategy.
About Brent
The demographic profile of the borough is characterised by a rich
multi-cultural, ethnically mixed population (54% of the population are
from Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority Groups). Brent has a relatively
young population with over 62% of residents aged under 40 years,
and 43% of residents aged under 30, which provides a large target
group for sport and leisure providers.
The population in Brent is due to increase from 263,466 in 2001
to over 305,000 by 2016. This population increase is focused in five
key housing growth areas: Wembley, Alperton, Burnt Oak/Colindale,
Church End and South Kilburn, which as major regeneration areas will
need a range of additional community facilities to meet the needs of
the new populations.

Focus for
Regeneration/Growth
Harrow
Brent has the fourth lowest average income levels in
London and 37% of households do not own a car. Brent
has become the 53rd most deprived Borough in England
(2007 Index of Multiple deprivation) with a sharp divide
between the relative affluence of the northern wards
and high levels of social and economic deprivation in the
central and southern wards.
London Borough of Brent Participation (3x30)
Estimates by Middle Super Output Area (MSOA)
HARROW
Wealdstone
Harrow on
the Hill
Perivale
! !
Greenhill
EALING
Legend
!
!
Wembley
!
!
Alperton
Ealing
!
Brent
Regions
Local Autorities
MSOA Estimates
Quantile Classification
!
!
!
!
Kenton Kingsbury
!
!
!
!
!
!
Wembley
Legend
Opportunity Areas
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Burnt Oak
/Colindale
Park Royal
Town Cenre / Mixed Use
Business/Industry Use
Housing Growth Areas
Key Town Centres
Metropolitan Centres
Key Rail Stations
!
!
Harlesden
!
!
Hendon
BARNET
Willesden
Golders
Green
10.8% - 18.1% (low)
18.2% - 20.7% (low-middle)
20.8% - 23.4% (middle-high)
23.5% - 36.7% (high)
!
Church
End
! ! !
! !
Hammersmith
& Fulham
Other Rail Stations
Major rail proposal
Barnet
Executive Summary
CAMDEN
CITY OF
HAMMERSMITH WESTMINSTER
AND FULHAM
KENSINGTON
AND CHELSEA
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Kensington
& Chelsea
White
City
!
!
The Borough has health inequalities issues with male life
expectancy increasing by ten years if you travel from the
South East to the North West of the Borough. Nearly
20% of Brent’s population is estimated to be obese and
Brent has higher than average levels of child obesity.
There are high and increasing prevalence of diabetes,
HIV and TB within specific communities and areas within
the Borough.
South
Kilburn
Future Public Transport improvements
Major roads
London Borough of Brent
Railway Lines
Camden
The 2006 Active People Survey shows that sports
participation levels across the borough are some of
the lowest in London with only 18% of Brent’s adults
undertaking 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per
week and 56% undertaking no physical activity.
The most popular indoor sports amongst Brent’s
surveyed residents were swimming and attending a
Westminster
gym, however both of these were below the London
average. The most popular outdoor sports were football
and running/jogging, again both of these were below
the London average. Involvement by residents in a sports
club is low compared to most other London Borough’s
with only 20% of Brent adults being members of a club
compared to over 26% across London.
Despite low adult participation rates, momentous
improvements have taken place in school sport and PE
since 2003. In 2003 only 24% of Brent’s 5-16 year olds
participated in at least two hours of high quality PE and
out of hour’s school sport in a typical week, in 2007 this
percentage had increased to 83% of pupils.
Brent is one of the host Borough’s for the London 2012
Olympics and the enthusiasm and motivation that hosting
the Olympics in Brent can make to the young and old
should be capitalised upon, such that the legacy of 2012
is achieved.
Current Levels of Sports Provision
The current provision of all indoor and outdoor sports
facilities within the borough are discussed within the
strategy in terms of quantity, quality, accessibility and
demand. Sport England’s Strategic Planning Tools
including:- Active Places Power - capacity ratios,
accessibility – choice and opportunity, travel time to
facilities, personal share and the facilities planning model
were used in addition to the three commissioned reports
to determine current levels of supply and demand.
The analysis has clearly shown that there has been little
investment in the Borough’s sporting infrastructure
over the last twenty years. This means that in general
Brent has aging, poor quality sports facilities, low levels
Executive Summary
2

3
of satisfaction, low levels of provision in some
facility types which all contributes to some of the
lowest levels of sports participation in London.
The borough has a significant need for additional
indoor and outdoor sports facilities plus major
improvements and refurbishment to existing
facilities to make them fit for purpose and meet
the demands of a growing population.
Indoor Facilities
Sports Centres
Within the Borough of Brent there are five local
authority owned sports centres. Four of these are Brent
Council owned facilities: Bridge Park community leisure
centre and Charteris sports centre which are run by Brent
Council, plus Vale Farm and Willesden sports centres
which are operated on behalf of the Council by a leisure
management contractor. The fifth, Moberley sports and
educational centre although located in Brent in Kilburn is
owned and managed by the City of Westminster.
Each centre has a key role to play in providing publicly
accessible sports provision and plays an important role in
meeting the sporting demands of residents, particularly
amongst those residents who are unable to access
private facilities. However most of these centres are over
twenty years old and over half were not originally built
as sports centres. A separate report was commissioned
to undertake a strategic review of three of Brent’s
sports centres (Bridge Park, Charteris and Vale Farm)
which proposed a range of options to provide a best-fit
solution for future provision. It is recognised that the
greatest number of people participating in sport will
be at a sports centre and that if the current level and
quality of provision is maintained there is likely to be
little opportunity to significantly increase Brent’s levels of
participation in sport and physical activity.
Swimming Pools
The strategy highlights that the provision for swimming
across the borough is critically low with the provision of
just two community accessible pools. Over 50% of Brent
residents do not live within a 20 minute walk (1.6km)
of any type of swimming pool provision. The strategy
identifies that two additional 6 lane 25 metre swimming
pools are needed within the borough to meet demand
and that additional swimming pool provision that serves
the north and central areas of the borough will have
greatest benefit to residents.
Location of Sports Centres
Vale Farm
Sports Centre
Bridge Park
Community
Leisure Centre
Willesden
Sports Centre
Legend
Sports Centre Locations
1.6km Buffer of Sports Centres
Ward Boundaries
Charteris
Sports Centre
Sports Halls
The strategy has established that current sports hall
provision across the borough is sizeable. The majority of
halls however are approximately 30 years old and are of
declining quality. Whilst there is a good supply of sports
halls, public access to many of these is limited and this
creates problems meeting local demand. There are 9
school sites which don’t allow community access and
therefore there is an opportunity to increase capacity
further by working with schools to allow greater public
use. There is a good spread of sports halls across the
borough but central east parts of the borough have the
furthest to travel to use a publicly accessible sports hall.
With projected population increases there is a need
for an additional 21 badminton courts which should
be provided through a combination of new facilities,
refurbishment of existing facilities and increased access
to existing provision. Any new facilities on school sites
where local authority or government funding has
been used should have affordable community access
arrangements enforced.
Health and Fitness
The current supply of health and fitness facilities is below
the London and national average and there is a lack of
both pay and play facilities and provision by the private
sector. To bring the level of provision to meet demand
and be similar to the rest of London there needs to be
a further 827 fitness stations by 2016 according to the
Fitness Industry Association.
Whilst there is a place for private sector provision in
some parts of the Borough, given the demographics
of the borough there is a need to ensure there is wide
provision of affordable, pay and play health and fitness
Moberly Sports
Centre

Brent walking Travel Time to Nearest Publicity
Accessible Swimming Pool (Straight Line)
Harrow
Harrow Leisure Centre
Golds Gym
(Harrow)
Kenton
facilities that will ensure participation by all sections
of Brent’s communities. The current location of health
and fitness facilities on the southern periphery of the
borough mean that a vast majority of residents in the
central east and north central areas of the borough are
more than a 20 minute walk from a pay and play facility.
Any redevelopment or provision of new local authority
swimming pools and/or sports centres should seek to
increase capacity of health and fitness facilities and
private sector provision should be encouraged in those
areas where the market can sustain such provision.
Location of Health and
Fitness Facilities
Queensbury
Fryent
Northwick
Barnhill
Welsh Harp
Park Preston
Vale farm Sports Centre
Dollis Hill
The Manor
!
Holmes Place (Cricklewood)
!
Sudbury
Mapesbury
Dudden Hill
David Lloyd (Sudbury Hill)
Tokyngton
Esporta Health & Fitness (Swiss Cottage)
)
Boots Wellbeing
Centre (Greenford)
Wembley Central Willesden Green
Brondesbury Park
Stonebridge
Willesden Sports Centre
Alperton
Harlesden
Kilburn
Queen’s
Kensal Green Park
Gurnell Leisure Centre
Ealing
Legend
Pay & Play
Registered Membership
Railway
North Circular Road
Borough Boundary
Copthall Leisure Centre
Laboratory Spa & Health Club
Holmes Place (Hendon)
Legend
Barnet
Hammersmith
& Fulham Kensington
& Chelsea
Walking Time (mins)
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
Ward Boundaries
Pay & Play
Registered Membership Use
Private
Pay & Play Buffer 1.6km
Reg Member Use Buffer 1.6km
Private Buffer 1.6km
Executive Summary
Specialist indoor facilities
Brent has an indoor athletics track, squash courts and
bowling green all of which are located in different parts
of the Borough. Users of such facilities are more akin
to travelling further to participate in their chosen sport
and current levels of usage combined with a ‘young’
population determines that current provision meets
current and future levels of demand. There
are no indoor tennis, cricket, gymnastics
or climbing facilities within the Borough.
Consideration of any new provision of
Camden specialist indoor facilities would require
further research and analysis of provision
by neighbouring authorities and plans of
the national governing bodies of sport to
identify if there is sufficient sustainable
demand.
Jubilee Sports Centre
Westminster
Outdoor Facilities
Football Pitches
Brent football participation rates are average compared
to London and nationally but there are significantly low
numbers of teams playing in the borough. This may be
explained by the fact that 6 out of 10 local authority
pitches are in poor or very poor condition (see table 22
pitch quality ratings). The changing facilities are generally
good with a couple being of a poor standard. However,
the number of changing facilities are disproportionate to
the number of pitches. Local authority pitches need to be
improved and additional changing rooms provided which
in turn will increase capacity. It is highlighted that there
is a significant deficit of pitches in the borough based
on estimates of demand including latent demand and
therefore the borough requires an additional 25 adult,
5 youth and 21 mini football pitches The current
supply of pitches is well spread out covering
most of the borough however there is a need
to access school pitches in the south east corner
of Brent where there is under provision but no
available space on which to create additional
pitches.
Rugby Pitches
There are 4 rugby pitches in the borough, two
of which are local authority owned and are in
average condition. In order to meet local demand
the borough requires 3 publicly available rugby
pitches. In addition improvements to existing
rugby provision should include provision of
changing facilities, flood lighting, upgrading of
existing pitches and provision for mini-rugby.
Executive Summary
4

5
Cricket Pitches
Cricket is a locally popular sport with participation levels
well above the London and national average. The quality
of all the pitches is good although the local authority
pitches are generally not as good as private sports club
pitches. There appears to be sufficient overall supply
of cricket pitches to meet minimum demand estimates
however there are areas within the central and east
of Borough outside the 20 minute walk catchment.
Community use of the 3 pitches on school grounds is
limited and the quality of some of the authority’s pitches
needs to be improved. If levels of participation increase
or access to pitches on school sites reduce an additional
pitch will be required.
Gaelic Football pitches
Clubs currently operate at 6 Gaelic pitches in the
borough. An additional pitch will be opening at
Gladstone Park. It is believed that there is local
demand for expanded facilities at Silver Jubilee Park to
accommodate more Gaelic sports.
Synthetic Turf Pitches
The current supply of synthetic turf pitches is slightly
below the London average by 0.3 pitches however the
extra demand created through the additional population
will mean that by 2016 the borough will require one
additional synthetic turf pitch. The quality of the pitches
is generally good and the
poorest facility is being
refurbished later in 2008. The
demand for an affordable
community accessible
synthetic turf pitch is greatest
in the central and eastern
parts of the borough
Tennis Courts
There is currently 74 playable
tennis courts in the Borough,
provided within Brent parks,
secondary schools and on
privately owned / long term
leased club sites. Using
Active People data there
is a current need for four
additional tennis courts and a
further four by 2016. A large
number of the local authority
courts are in poor condition
and therefore it is important
to increase capacity by
improving the condition of
current tennis provision and
plan for additional provision
within the borough. It is also
Brent Population
Density Map
for 5-19 year olds
23
22
Northwick
Park
17
Sudbury
7 19
20
21
Kenton
29
14
18
Preston
16
5
15
Wembley
Central
highlighted that the tennis court provision in schools
facilities has limited community access meaning capacity
could be increased further if community use outside of
school hours was granted. There is greatest demand for
additional facilities in the south central and north central
areas where current provision is low.
Multi-Use games area (MUGA)/ball court
The audit confirmed that there are 21 MUGAs located at
19 sites and the quality is predominantly good. MUGAs
are primarily used by young people and provide local, free
opportunities for sport within local facilities such as parks
or attached to a youth centre or school. Facilities should
therefore be prioritised in areas with greatest densities of
young people.
Netball courts
The only outdoor netball facilities are on school sites.
The provision of 5 courts at Gladstone Park in 2009 will
go some way to meeting demand, however new courts
should be provided where possible e.g. school sites,
sports centres, preferably with floodlighting.
Specialist outdoor facilities
The Borough currently has one new outdoor athletics
track and nine bowling greens. There is spare capacity
at all of these facilities and current provision should be
sufficient to meet local needs now and into the future.
Queensbury
Barnhill
3
8
Tokyngton
10
2
24
28
26
Fryent
6
4
1
Welsh
Harp
Alperton 27
11
Stonebridge
9
Dollis Hill
0
12
Dudden Hill Mapesbury
Legend
Willesden Green
Brondesbury
Harlesden 25
Park
Kensal Green Queen’s Park
MUGA’s by Acess
Pay & Play
Private
Sports Club / Community Association
Parks & Open Spaces
Ward Boundary
Borough Boundary
Population Density
Very Low
Low
t.
Medium
High
Very High
Kilburn
13

However poor transport links from north of the borough
to the athletics track in the south of the Borough may be
hindering its level of use.
Priorities For Future Provision
Chapter seven of the strategy recommends priorities
for new and improved provision of indoor and outdoor
sports provision within the Borough to meet the demand;
proposing possible locations or areas which should be
served to address greatest levels of need. The number
one priority is the provision of a third swimming pool
that serves the North of the Borough. Other key priorities
are the redevelopment of Vale Farm sports centre into a
wet and dry side sports hub and the provision of a fourth
pool. All the priorities are detailed in chapter seven of the
strategy.
Local Standards
As well as recommending specific facility quantity
standards the strategy enforces that the council needs to:
1. ensure facilities are adaptable and imaginative to meet
the requirements of the borough, its diverse ethnic and
cultural communities and its changing population.
2. encourage facilities that provide access by all sections
of the community and adoption of sports equity policies.
3. ensure that public sector facilities include resources
to ensure that the facility charges are affordable, that
programming recognises the needs of all users and low
and under-represented groups are specifically targeted.
4. ensure there is development of facilities of sufficient
quality and distribution to encourage increased levels of
participation.
5. ensure the adoption of quality standards in design,
construction and energy efficiency.
6. ensure facilities are accessible by public transport,
bicycle and foot to ensure good practice in sustainable
development.
7.ensure planning conditions require new sports
facilities on school sites to provide accessible, affordable
community access through agreed facility management
arrangements.
8. only fund / contribute to improvements in school
sports facilities where clear management plans and design
practice maximises sporting use outside of school hours.
The strategy identifies a range of local standards which
will act as a mechanism for assessing local provision.
It will help the authority achieve its Planning Policy
Guidelines (PPG17) - Planning for Open Space, Sport
and Recreation requirements to set standards locally
for open space, including indoor and outdoor sport
and recreational activities. Whilst these local standards
Executive Summary
will help inform the planning process and provide a
basis for future negotiations giving sport a bigger voice
in gaining money to go towards new facilities, the
standards take into account that Brent residents will
use facilities in neighbouring boroughs, which may be
closer to their home. This is particularly the case for
swimming pools and sports halls, and for these sports
these local standards should not be used to determine
the level of demand generated by housing development.
The summary of local standards for indoor and outdoor
provision are in chapter eight of this strategy.
Delivery
The delivery of the indoor and outdoor facility
requirements identified in this strategy will need the
creation and development of partnerships and innovative
solutions in order to realise the strategy’s objectives and
recommendations.
Reductions in local authority resources require that
new sources of funding, particularly external to the
Council will need to be identified and pursued, often in
partnership with other organisations in order to bring about
the required improvement in sports facility provision.
Building Schools for the Future (BSF) offers a unique
opportunity to develop new sport facilities in conjunction
with schools as part of this national scheme. This strategy
must inform the location of BSF facilities such that school
provision helps to address strategic community need as
well as educational requirements. Ensuring the design of
school sports facilities to enable easy access plus robust,
affordable community management arrangements
are essential to ensure maximum benefit to all Brent’s
communities is achieved.
By prioritising provision and enabling local standards,
this strategy will allow sport to gain a foothold into the
future planning and forms the evidence base to support
planning obligations (section 106 planning gain) and
justify contributions to sports facilities relative to other
priority pressures.
Monitoring And Review
The strategy will be reviewed on an annual basis with
the findings of this review being reported to the Brent
CSPAN. Each review will compare achievements against
priorities, taking account of changes in circumstances and
potential new opportunities. An annual review will allow
any slippage to be recognised and priorities re-timetabled
accordingly. The review will also provide an updated
facility audit of indoor and outdoor facilities and this
information will be fed into the Active Places database.
Executive Summary
6

7
The need for a strategy
In 2006, Sport England’s national Active People Survey identified that
the London Borough of Brent had one of the lowest participation and
volunteering rates for sport and physical activity in the country. This
was despite Brent being a host borough for the 2012 Olympics and
Wembley being recognised as the home of national and international
football.
In 2007 Sport England approached Brent Council to become a
pilot in their Local Sport and Recreation Strategic Planning Support
Programme. This opportunity, together with low physical activity
participation rates, increasing child obesity, anticipated population
growth and aging sports facility stock, indicated that it was necessary
for the Council and key stakeholders in the provision and future
provision of sports opportunities to develop a strategic review of
existing and future provision of sports facilities in Brent.
Producing the Strategy
Supported by Sport England’s London Region planning officer and
consultants - Leisure and the Environment/Genesis, a steering group
was established that included officers from key service areas within
the Council (including Sports Service, Parks Service, Planning Service,
Children and Families, Policy and Regeneration Unit and further
support from the Assistant Director of Environment and Culture who
chaired the steering group) to audit, inform and write this strategy.
Strategy Vision
The overall vision for the Planning for Sport and Active Recreation
Facilities Strategy 2008 – 2021 is:
To ensure the co-ordinated, strategic development of formal and
informal facilities for sport and active recreation within Brent that
meets the needs of a changing multi cultural population and provides
attractive, sustainable, accessible, quality facilities that enhances the
Boroughs natural and built environment. Such provision will increase
opportunities for participation in sport and active recreation by all
sections of the community resulting in improved health, well being
and enhanced quality of life of Brent’s residents.
In order to achieve the vision a number of key objectives have been
identified:
Objectives
Strategic provision -
To ensure there is a planned approach to the provision of a local and
strategic mix of facilities that considers cross boundary issues and
takes account of priorities set out in regional and local sports related
strategies
Meets need of future populations –
To provide an innovative approach to the provision of facilities that
can meet the future needs of a growing population.

Delivers on sustainability principles –
To ensure that sustainability is at the forefront of all
sports and recreation provision particularly in relation
to design, construction, use of natural resources
and sustainable transport to assure respect for the
environment.
Provides access for all –
To ensure that sport and recreation facility providers
commit to extensive, well managed, affordable
community access for all.
Maximises a Facilities lifespan –
To ensure that mechanisms and funding are in place
to secure regular facility maintenance to enhance the
lifespan of the facility and maintain quality standards of
provision.
Creates a safe and secure environment –
To embrace a design-led approach to new sports facilities
that helps to reduce crime and the fear of crime.
Seeks contributions for sports provision
from developers –
To secure appropriate funding for sports provision from
new residential development in the borough to help meet
the sporting needs of a growing population.
The vision and objectives set out what this strategy
in part, hopes to achieve, and is the starting point
for identifying current levels of provision and impacts
of future demand. Brent people should have equal
opportunities and access to sport and physical activities
and it is hoped this report will go some way in helping to
achieve this.
Strategy Scope
The purpose of this strategy is to set out a plan for the
development of sports facilities in the borough. The
scope of facilities considered includes sports and leisure
centres, swimming pools, sports halls, synthetic turf
pitches, grass pitches, sports pavilions, outdoor courts
(tennis, netball and basketball), indoor courts (tennis,
squash), 5-a-side facilities (including MUGA’s), athletic
tracks, bowling greens, health and fitness provision,
cycling and watersports. All sports facility providers have
been included in this scope including those provided by
the private sector, voluntary common community sector
and other public providers, as well as facilities within
neighbouring boroughs.
Chapter One Introduction
Developing the Strategy
The strategy has been informed by a strategic review of
all sports facilities across the borough. A range of Sport
England tools have also been used to identify supply
and demand and this is explained further in chapter five
of this strategy. An audit of outdoor sports pitches was
undertaken which has informed the outdoor facilities
element of this report and a strategic review of sports
centres was also undertaken which has helped inform the
priorities of indoor sports provision within this report.
Strategy Consultation
This is not a general sports strategy for Brent and
therefore the consultation focused on key stakeholders
rather than the general public.
A Sports Strategy ‘Challenge Day’ was held on 13th May
2008 as the first step to producing a new Sports and
Physical Activity Strategy for Brent. As part of this event
a presentation was made to stakeholders about the main
findings from the work that had been undertaken to date
on the Planning for Sport and Active Recreation Facilities
Strategy and two workshops were held specifically
focusing on main issues facing current and new facilities
in Brent. The outcomes from these workshops have been
fed into this strategy.
The draft strategy was widely circulated for comment
to partners, local authorities, sporting organisations,
governing bodies of sport, Councillors, senior council
officers and Brent Community Sport and Physical
Activity Network members, housing associations, Sport
England and developers, as well as being available on
the Council’s website. The responses arising from this
consultation have informed the final version of this
strategy.
The Brent Community Sport and Physical Activity
Network (Brent CSPAN), a group of key stakeholders
from the voluntary sports sector, school sports, health
authority, youth service, facility providers, community
sector and Council departments were consulted on
the draft document and endorsed the final strategy in
September 2008. A report summarising the key findings
and recommendations arising from this strategy was
approved by the Council’s Executive Committee in
November 2008 and therefore this strategy’s priorities
and recommendations can be fed into other strategic
documents and business planning processes as well
as being incorporated into the Local Development
Framework Planning Document and acknowledged by
Brent’s Local Strategic Partnership.
Chapter One - Introduction 8

9
Contents of the Strategy
This review offers a strategic approach for sports facility
provision and improvements in Brent, by determining
current and future provision for both indoor and outdoor
sports. The strategy is broken down into ten sections:
Chapter 1 – Introduction. This chapter explains why
there is a need for this strategy, its vision, how the
strategy has been written and the process that has
informed the strategy.
Chapter 2 – A Profile of Brent. This provides an
overview of Brent ‘as a place’ including the demographic
profile, socio-economic issues, transport systems and
levels of participation in sport
Chapter 3 - Strategic Context. This reviews key
national, regional and local strategies and policies that
affect sport provision
Chapter 4 – Market Segmentation. This details two
marketing tools that analyse population types and the
type of sport and physical activities that they are more
likely to participate in.
Chapter 5 - Planning Tools This chapter describes Sport
England’s various planning tools which have been used
in chapter six to identify levels of supply and demand of
Brent’s indoor and outdoor facilities.
Chapter 6 - Indoor and Outdoor Sports Facility
Provision. This chapter details the current level of indoor
and outdoor sports facility provision and future needs
using the planning tools described in chapter five.
Chapter 7 - Priorities for Future Sports Facility
Provision. This identifies the key issues arising out of
the profile of the Borough and facility provision analysis.
It details analysis supply verses demand of indoor and
outdoor sports provision and prioritises future provision
of facilities.
Chapter 8 – Local Standards. This identifies local
standards for indoor and outdoor sports provision.
Chapter 9 – Delivery. This covers how the strategy will
be delivered through partnerships, resources, planning
gain and the potential that will arise from Building
Schools for the Future programme.
Chapter 10 – Monitoring and Review. This chapter
gives an overview as to how this strategy will be
monitored and reviewed to ensure it remains an effective
document and that the priorities within it are being
addressed.
Brent currently has a Strategy for Sport and Physical
Activity 2004 – 2009 which is being reviewed and
rewritten for implementation from summer 2009. It is
not the purpose of this Planning for Sport and Active
Recreation Facilities Strategy to repeat the wider strategy,
however, information contained within this report will
feed into the new Sports and Physical Activity strategy.

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
Chapter One Introduction
Chapter One - Introduction 10

11
Brent is a place of contrasts. It is characterised by a sharp divide
between the relative affluence of the northern wards and high
levels of social and economic deprivation in areas south of the North
Circular Road. Although there are also pockets of deprivation in the
Northern wards that should not be overlooked, the north of the
borough is generally sub-urban in character with an older population
whilst the south experiences many of the challenges faced by inner
city communities.
Map 1: Wards within the London Borough of Brent
Brent Wards
Kenton
Northwick
Park Preston
Sudbury
Wembley
Central
Alperton
Queensbury
Barnhill
Tokyngton
Fryent
Welsh
Harp
Stonebridge
Dollis Hill
Legend
Borough Boundary
Ward Boundary
Mapesbury
Dudden Hill
Willesden
Green Brondesbury
Park
Kensal
Green
Queen’s
Park
Within the West London sub-region Brent has the highest levels
of diversity and multiple deprivation and is also the most densely
populated borough. Brent shares its boundaries with 7 other
boroughs (Barnet, Harrow, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham,
Kensington and Chelsea, Westminster and Camden) and many Brent
residents will use sports facilities across the border, in neighbouring
authorities.
Population and Populations Projections
Brent’s population is growing. Recent figures indicate significant
numbers of people moving into the borough creating new emerging
communities. Brent also has significant numbers of transient people.
Brent is one of only two local authorities serving a population
where the majority of people are from Black and Minority Ethnic
communities. The GLA estimate Brent’s population was at least
279,200 in 2007 and independent research commissioned by the
Council estimates the figure to be nearer 289,000 at March 2007.
Population growth in Brent has largely occurred in the south of the
borough and is predominantly the result of an increase in the number
of young adults, often with pre-school or young children. This has

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
resulted in a significant 8% increase in the birth rate in Map 3: Key regeneration areas within Brent
the past eighteen months. Brent has the second highest
number of new National Insurance registrations
in the country at 15,600 in 2007. Nearly 8% of
Brent’s population is classified as refugees or asylum Focus for
!
seekers. The ONS 2006 mid-year estimates place Regeneration/Growth
Focus for
! !
Regeneration/Growth
!
!
Brent with a slightly higher male population at
Burnt Oak
! /Colindale Burnt Oak
136,000 with 135,400 females.
! /Colindale
! !
!
! !
!
Focus for
!
!
!
Map 2: Population densities by ward
!
!
Regeneration/Growth !
!
!
Population by Ward
�
!
!
!
Harrow Burnt Oak
!
/Colindale
! !
Harrow !
! Barnet
! !
! !
Queensbury
!
!
!
!
Wembley!
!
!
!
13179
!
!
!
!
! ! ! Wembley
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
11881
! !
!
11888 Fryent
Church
! !
! !
!
!
Harrow
!
!
!
End Church ! !
Kenton
!
! Camden !
!
End ! ! !
!
Camd
!
!
! ! Alperton
!
13164
!
!
!
Wembley
Alperton !
! !
!
12168
!
!
!
12440
! !
!
12831
! !
Barnhill
!
!
! !
!
!
Dollis
! !
South !
!
!
!
Northwick
Welsh
!
!
Hill
!
! Kilburn South
!
park Preston
Church
!
!
Harp
!
!
Ealing
Kilbu
!
12075
!
End
!
Camden Kensington
! Ealing
12296
Park Royal
& Chelsea
Westminster
! !
Kensington
Mapesbury
Hammersmith
Tokyngton
Alperton !
Park Royal
& Chelsea
W
Dudden Hill
& Fulham !
Sudbury
! !
Hammersmith White
! �+
Wembley
13362
13220
! ! ! & Fulham City White
Central 11825
Legend
! !
South
City
!
Willesden Green
10978
Opportunity Legend Areas
Kilburn
!
15927
12721 Brondesbury Park
Town Cenre Opportunity / Mixed Use Areas
Ealing
Other Rail Stations
Harlesden
11668
Kensington
Alperton
Business/Industry Use Major rail proposal
Kilburn Park Royal Town Cenre / Mixed
&
Use
Chelsea
Other Rail Westminster Stations
12221
Stonebridge
Kensal
Housing Growth Business/Industry Hammersmith Areas UseFuture
Public Major Transport rail proposal improvements
12346
Green Queen’s Park
Key Town Centres
Major roads
14183
Housing & Fulham Growth Areas White Future Public Transport improvements
10677
12401
Metropolitan Key Centres Town Centres London City Borough Major roads of Brent
Legend
Key Rail Stations Metropolitan Centres Railway Lines London Borough of Brent
Opportunity Areas
Key Rail Stations
Railway Lines
Legend
Town Cenre / Mixed Use
Business/Industry Use
Other Rail Stations
Major rail proposal
Ward
Total Population
10677 - 10978
10979 - 12075
12076 - 12831
12832 - 14183
14184 - 15927
Ward Boundaries
Housing Growth Areas
Key Town Centres
Metropolitan Centres
Key Rail Stations
Future Public Transport improvements
Major roads
London Borough of Brent
Railway Lines
The GLA projections estimate Brent’s population to grow
to over 291,000 by 2016, an increase of nearly 12,000.
However, this figure does not incorporate the impact
of additional housing in the borough and the London
Plan identifies that Brent will accommodate 11,200 new
homes by 2017 with the population therefore expected
to grow to over 305,000. These new homes will be
focused in five housing growth areas; Wembley, Alperton,
Burnt Oak/Colindale, Church End and South Kilburn
with at least half of the projected growth occurring in
Wembley, Alperton, Burnt Oak/Colindale and South
Kilburn are expected to gain 1,000 - 1,500 additional
households (2,500 - 3,750 people) and Church End is
expected to gain 500 – 750 additional households.
Barnet
Barnet
Currently the wards with the highest population figures
are Stonebridge, Kilburn, Mapesbury, Queensbury and
Dudden Hill. Stonebridge and Kilburn wards both have
the highest population according to GLA estimates with
just over 17,000 and 15,000 respectively.
Black and Minority Ethnic Groups
54.4% of Brent residents are from black and minority
ethnic communities, this compares to approximately
40% of London’s population and 12% of the population
of England and Wales. These groups comprise of
established Indian, Black Caribbean, Black African
and Irish communities as well as emerging Eastern
European, Somali, Turkish and Hispanic communities.
Brent residents speak over 130 different languages
but ethnicity varies by ward. The Asian population
tends to be located towards the west of the borough,
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent 12

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
13
with Queensbury having the highest number of Asian
residents and Wembley Central the highest number
of Asian or Asian British Indian residents. The highest
concentrations of Black African Caribbean residents are in
Stonebridge and Harlesden wards. The white population
tend to be located towards the east of the Borough and
Kilburn. Mapesbury and Dollis Hill wards have the highest
numbers of white Irish residents. In the next 10 years the
BME population is expected to increase to 60% of the
population. The largest increase is expected to be in the
Asian population which is expected to increase to just
under a third of the population (32%) by 2016.
Table 1: Brent’s population by ethnicity
1991 2001
Ethnicity Population Percentage Population Percentage Percentage of
Changes
Asian 56482 21.6 73062 27.7 29.4
Black 39388 15.1 52337 19.9 32.9
Mixed N/A N/A 9802 3.7 N/A
White 132729 50.7 119278 45.3 -10.1
Other 9987 3.8 8985 3.4 -10
Total
Graph 1: Ethnic distribution by age group 2006 and 2016 Age Structure
Brent has a relatively young population, a quarter of
residents are aged 19 years or under. The South of
the borough has the highest concentrations of young
people and in Brent’s five most deprived wards, a third
of residents are aged under 16 years. 62% of people in
Brent are under the age of 40 years (Nationally 52% of
the population is aged under 40) and only 14% of the
population are of pensionable age.
0-14 15-44 44-64 65+
Other
Black
0-14 15-44 44-64 65+
2006 2016
Asian
White
The largest numbers of children live in Wembley (28%)
and the least in Kilburn (16%).Whilst many live in
moderate posterity, many however are still living in low
income households in deprived areas. Harlesden has
the highest percentage of children living in deprived
households, (59% of all children in the area).
The population pyramid on the next page shows the
structure of Brent’s population compared to that of the
UK (shown by the blue line). This pyramid emphasises
Brent’s young population.

Graph 2: Population Pyramid
Chapter Two A profile of Brent
MEN
90 and over
85 - 89
80 - 84
WOMEN
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
UK Average
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15 - 19
10 - 14
5 - 9
0 - 4
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
Deprivation
The 2007 Index of Multiple deprivation identified Brent
as the 53rd most deprived area out of 354 boroughs;
previously the borough had been ranked 81st (1 = Most
Deprived, 354 = Least Deprived). This ranking now places
Brent within the 15% most deprived areas of the country.
While the main locations of multiple deprivation are in
the South of the borough, particularly in Stonebridge,
Harlesden, parts of Kensal Green, Willesden Green and
Kilburn wards there are new pockets emerging in the
North and West in parts of Barnhill, Welsh Harp and
Wembley Central wards.
Map 4: Deprivation levels within individual wards
Index of Multiple
Deprivation 2007
Northwick
Park
Sudbury
Kenton
Preston
Barnhill
Queensbury
Tokyngton
Fryent
Welsh
Harp
Dollis Hill
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Overall IMD 2007 Rank
Top 10% Most Deprived
10 to 20% Most Deprived
20 to 30% Most Deprived
30 to 40% Deprived
40 to 80% Least Deprived
Lower values (dark colours)
indicate higher deprivation
Wembley
Dudden Hill
Central
Mapesbury
Willesden
Green
Brondesbury
Alperton Harlesden Park Kilburn
Stonebridge
Queen’s
Kensal Green
Park
Deprivation experienced within the borough is
characterised by relatively high levels of long-term
unemployment (24% of unemployed people are classified
as long-term unemployed compared to a London average
of 15%), low household incomes and dependence on
benefits and social housing. Across Brent 65.5% of
residents aged 16-74 were registered as economically
active which is slightly down on the London average of
67.6%. Of those registered economically inactive, 5%
were unemployed according to the Census data in 2001.
In addition, qualifications and skills levels in Brent are
low and Brent ranks 6th from bottom within London on
overall residence-based skills and qualifications score.
Children and young people are particularly affected by
deprivation with a third of Brent’s children living in low
income households, a quarter in social housing and a
fifth in single-adult households.
Income
According to the methodology PayCheck, Brent has
the 4th lowest average mean income levels in London
(Waltham Forest, Newham, and Barking & Dagenham
are lower). PayCheck is a measure of household income
from all sources including benefits (i.e. not just earnings).
The mean or average unequivalised household annual
income for Brent is £35,607 from 2007 dataset (Greater
London is £38,781). There is a £13,000 difference
in mean annual income between the wealthiest and
poorest neighbourhoods within Brent. Mapesbury is
the wealthiest ward with an average annual income of
£41,053. In comparison Stonebridge has average annual
income of £28,052. Stonebridge, Harlesden and Kilburn
wards are the most income deprived areas in the Borough
and the majority of the remaining wards fall within the
20% most income deprived areas in England.
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
14

Map 5: The most and least income deprived wards in
the borough.
Kenton
Northwick Park
Sudbury
Health
Preston
Queensbury
Barnhill
Wembley Central
Tokyngton
Fryent
Welsh Harp
Brondesbury Park
Harlesden
Alperton
Stonebridge
Kilburn
Kensal Green Queen’s Park
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Most income deprived
Least income deprived
Dollis Hill
Dudden Hill Mapesbury
Willesden Green
Legend
There are significant health
inequalities in the borough,
linked to location, gender, level
of deprivation and ethnicity. The
most deprived wards in the South
of the borough have a higher death
rate, and lower life expectancy than
the less deprived wards in the North
of the borough. The prevalence of
diabetes in Brent is high compared
to the national average with 4.6%
of the population being diagnosed
with the condition, although the
proportion that are undiagnosed
may be closer to 6%. Brent has one of the
highest rates of TB in London and in England.
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
KENTON
Northwick Park
Sudbury
Kenton
The 2001 Census found 70% of Brent’s
population to be in good health, with 21%
rated fairly good and 9% as not good. Over
the last ten years, rates of deaths from all causes have
decreased for both men and women and are lower than
the England average. Circulatory diseases, including heart
15
S. KENTON
disease, strokes and cancers, are the most common cause
of death in Brent. The health status of the Borough is also
a reflection of income deprivation with the prevalence of
life limiting health conditions and lower life expectancy in
the most deprived wards in the south of the Borough.
The prevalence of diabetes in Brent is high compared to
the national average with 4.6% of the population being
diagnosed with the condition. Brent also has one of the
highest rates of TB in London and in England.
The Department of Health’s 2007 health profile of Brent
in 2007 states that on average people live longer in
Brent than England overall and female life expectancy
is rising faster than in England. However there is a stark
difference in the life expectancy within the deprived areas
compared to the more affluent areas. These differences
can be illustrated by examining male life expectancy
along the Bakerloo line where a journey of 3.5 miles
takes you from Harlesden which has the lowest life
expectancy level for men to South Kenton where life
expectancy is over 9 years longer.
Map 6: Male Life-Expectancy Gaps Between Deprived
and Affluent Wards in Brent (Harlesden to South Kenton
along the Bakerloo Line)
Preston
N. WEMBLEY
Barnhill
Wembley Central
Alperton
Queensbury
Tokyngton
WEMBLEY CENTRAL
Fryent
Welsh Harp
Stonebridge
STONEBRIDGE PARK
HARLESDON
Harlesden
WILLSDEN JUNCTION
Dollis Hill
Dudden Hill
Willesden Green
Kensal Green
Bakerloo Tube Line
Bakerloo Line Stations
Mapesbury
Brondesbury Park
Queen’s Park
KENSAL GREEN
2001 - 2005
Male Life Expectancy
by Ward (Years)
80 to 81
79 to 80
77 to 78
76 to 77
75 to 76
74 to 75
73 to 74
72 to 73
71 to 72
70 to 71
Kilburn
QUEEN’S PARK

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
A high proportion of people rate their health as ‘not
good’, and diabetes and tuberculosis are higher than the
England average with diabetes affecting 1 in 20 people.
Approximately 19.6% of Brent’s population are classed
as obese which is slightly less than the 22.1% for the rest
of England. However, the percentage of children in
year 6 who are obese is 22.5% in Brent which is 5%
higher than the national average. This places Brent
with the 10th highest obesity levels for year 6 in
England (compared against 152 PCT areas).
The rate of teenage pregnancy in Brent is higher
than the national average and the Department
of Health have recommended that this, diabetes
and tuberculosis are the main priorities for Brent
to address. Sport and physical activity can have a huge
influence on improving the health of the borough which
will in turn help reduce the economic burden put on to
the national health service.
Accessibility
Brent has a very low vehicle ownership; 37.3% of
households do not have access to a vehicle and therefore
public transport plays a key role in transporting people
around the Borough.
The Borough has a complex public transport network
with 48 daytime bus services and 13 night bus services
which are utilised by 30 million people a year, a figure
that is growing at more than 5% per annum. Some 26
stations provide access to one or more of the Bakerloo,
Jubilee, Metropolitan and Piccadilly London Underground
lines and national rail services operated by Chiltern
Railways, Silverlink Trains and South Central.
There are some areas of Brent which have poor public
transport accessibility and these are often areas of
high deprivation where car ownership is also low. This
includes the St Raphael’s and Brentfield Estates which
are severed by the A406 North Circular Road meaning
access is restricted and it is compounded by infrequent
bus services.
A further aspect of accessibility is severance, where
major highways or rail corridors create physical
and psychological barriers which effectively cut off
communities from key services. Key examples of this in
Brent are the A406 North Circular Road and the West
Coast Mainline railway which both serves the borough.
The high speeds and traffic flows of the A406 are
both intimidating and limit crossing only to designated
controlled points.
Vale Farm Sports Centre
Map 7: Main bus and rail routes within Brent
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre
Willesden Sports Centre
Public Transport Accessibility Levels (PTAL) provides a
more detailed picture of how accessible different parts
of the borough are to the public transport network. The
higher PTAL scores (4-6b, yellow to red) indicate areas
which are within a short walking distance of one or more
forms of public transport interchange. Map 8 on the next
page shows that the areas with the highest PTAL scores
are Kilburn, parts of Mapesbury, Kensal Green, Harlesden,
Sudbury, Wembley Central and Tokyngton.
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
Legend
Borough Boundary
Ward Boundary
Sports Centre
Bus Route
Railway Lines
Charteris Sports Centre
16

Map 8: Public Transport Accessibility Levels in Brent
Vale Farm sports Centre
17
Bridge Park Community
Leisure Centre
Cycle links
There are currently 9 London Cycling Network routes that
pass through the borough and these can be seen on the
map below. The government’s emphasis on green travel
has raised cycling onto the political agenda and meant
that there is increasing amounts of funding for cycling
projects. The council has improved cycle routes within
the borough and the local routes can be seen on the map
below.
Map 9: Cycle Routes in Brent
Willesden Sports
Centre
Legend
Legend
Borough Boundary
Ward Boundary
Cycle Route
Borough Boundaries
Ward Boundaries
Sports Centre
PTAL June 2006
PTAL Score
1a
1b
2
3
4
5
6a
6b
Charteris Sports
Centre
Crime
Brent has traditionally been a high crime area, although,
in recent years we have made significant progress in
reducing crime levels within our borough. Since 2003/04
(PSA 1 baseline year) the borough has achieved a 15%
reduction in its British Crime Survey (BCS) offences. This is
the equivalent of 3,248 fewer offences than in 2003/04.
Brent has higher crime levels in relation to the national
average and is about mid-way point in the crime rates
per 1000 of the population for the London Boroughs.
However total crime is falling and in the period January
07 – January 08 total crime fell to 28,170 from 31,555
the previous year. The most deprived areas of Brent
witness the most amount of crime in locations such
as Stonebridge, Harlesden, Kilburn, Tokyngton and
Wembley Central wards.

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
Brent’s Sports Participation Profile
It is important to establish participation figures for sport
and physical activities as it has implications on facility
demand and may help identify any shortfalls in provision.
It is also essential to analyse participation levels to provide
further information on issues and factors that may
be affecting participation and ways of addressing any
problems identified.
Active People Survey
The Active People Survey (2006) conducted by Sport
England provides information on adult participation levels
in sport and physical activity within the Borough. It is a
nationwide survey based on a telephone interview with
1000 people per authority taken over the period of one
year. The survey therefore allows the Council to compare
itself with other authorities across the country.
The Active People Survey (APS) also provides useful
data on the types of sports/physical activities people are
participating in as well as levels of volunteering in sport,
club membership, levels of sport tuition, and satisfaction
0x30 1x30 2x30 3x30
Zero days a week x
30 minutes moderate
participation
4-7 days a month x
30 minutes moderate
participation
8-11 days a
month x30
minutes moderate
participation
At least 3
days a week
x30 minutes
moderate
participaton
All 56.50% 9.80% 6.39% 18.00%
Gender
Male 52.30% 8.70% 6.70% 22.30%
Female 60.70% 10.90% 6.10% 13.80%
Age Groups
16-24 39.10% 12.80% 8.00% 29.60%
25-34 50.10% 13.40% 6.90% 16.90%
35-44 54.50% 9.40% 8.70% 18.10%
45-54 55.00% 8.70% 5.90% 18.60%
55-64 64.40% 8.20% 4.10% 15.70%
65-74 80.30% 3.50% 4.80% 7.80%
75-84 89.30% 2.30% 0.00% 8.50%
85+ 78.00% 11.20% 0.00% 10.80%
Ethnicity
White 51.80% 13.00% 6.30% 19.30%
Non White 61.10% 6.70% 6.40% 16.80%
Limiting disability 76.60% 7.80% 3.40% 4.20%
No limiting disability 54.00% 10.00% 3.20% 19.70%
Source:
levels with local sports provision.
Participation in Physical Activities by Gender, Age Groups and Ethnicity
According to APS (2006) only 18% of Brent adults
participate in 3 x 30 minutes of physical activity per
week. This is a low participation rate with only Barking
& Dagenham and Newham having lower participation
rates in London. The 3 x 30 minutes London average is
21.3% and the national average is 21%. Nationally Brent
were placed 34th out of 354 authorities with 1 being the
lowest rates of 3 x 30 participation.
Because Brent has such low participation rates the
data resulting from more detailed analysis is classified
as statistically unreliable but it gives a broad indication
of more detailed participation rates. It is important to
note however that Willesden Sports Centre was closed
for redevelopment during the year that the survey was
undertaken and this may have affected participation
levels. The APS survey will be repeated annually so
changes in participation can be monitored, with the next
available results in 2009.
Table 2: Brent’s 2006 Active People survey results
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
18

19
Sport England have calculated small area estimates for 3 x 30 minutes participation. The following map Willesden illustrates areas
of higher and lower participation across the Borough.
Map 10: Brent’s 2006 Active People survey results by middle super output area
London Borough of Brent Participation (3x30) Estimates by Middle Super Output Area (MSOA)
HARROW
Wealdstone
Harrow on
the Hill
Perivale
Greenhill
Legend
Kenton Kingsbury
Wembley
EALING
Regions
Local Autorities
MSOA Estimates
Brent
Harlesden
Hendon
BARNET
Willesden
Golders
Green
10.8% - 18.1% (low)
18.2% - 20.7% (low-middle)
20.8% - 23.4% (middle-high)
CAMDEN
CITY OF
HAMMERSMITH WESTMINSTER
AND FULHAM
KENSINGTON
AND CHELSEA
Table 3: Quantile 2006 Active Classification People survey 23.5% results - 36.7% ‘zero (high) participation’.
Harrow on
the Hill
Regions
Local Autorities
MSOA Estimates
Quantile Classification
Brent ‘Zero days’ participation rates
Zero days - 30 minutes moderate participation (all adults) Brent
(LA)
56.5% of Brent residents had not taken part in any
physical activity within the four weeks preceding the
survey. This is considerably greater than both the
regional (49.5%) and national averages (50.6%),
and shows that a very large proportion of Brent’s
residents need to make significant lifestyle changes
if they are to achieve the government target of 3
x 30 mins participation in order to lead a healthier
lifestyle.
London National
All 56.5% 49.5% 50.6%
Male 52.3% 44.7% 45.8%
Female 60.7% 54.2% 55.2%
16 to 34 45.6% 36.6% 33.7%
35 to 54 54.7% 45.2% 47.6%
55 and over 75.1% 71.8% 71.0%
White 51.8% 47.5% 50.3%
Non white 61.1% 55.2% 54.5%
Limiting disability 76.6% 76.8% 76.5%
No limiting disability 54.0% 45.5% 45.7%
NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 48.8% 40.2% 42.1%
NS-SEC 3 (B) 63.2% 54.4% 51.9%
NS-SEC 4 (C1) 52.9% 48.4% 50.9%
NS-SEC 5, 6, 7, 8 (C2DE) 66.9% 63.4% 60.0%
Perivale
Greenhill
EALING
Legend
Kenton Kingsbury
Wembley
Brent
Harlesden
Hendon
BARNET
HAMMERSMITH
Golders
Green
AND FULHAM KENSINGTON
AND CHELSEA
10.8% - 18.1% (low)
18.2% - 20.7% (low-middle)
20.8% - 23.4% (middle-high)
23.5% - 36.7% (high)
CAMDEN
CITY OF
WESTMINSTER

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
A demographic breakdown of participation levels highlights the particular groups which are participating less than
others. Female non-participation is particularly high at 61% (London average is 54%), as is non participation by social
class B (NS-SEC 3) at 63% (London average is 54%). Zero participation is higher amongst BME groups (61%) than
it is amongst white groups (52%) and those in Brent with a limiting disability are considerably more likely to do zero
participation (77%) than those without a limiting disability, although this percentage for people with a limiting disability
is very similar to the London and National score. The survey also shows that people aged 55+ in Brent have a lower
participation rate compared to the national and London average.
The APS also recorded data relating to a broad range of associated sport and leisure related indicators. Brent’s resulting
scores are shown in the table below:
Table 4: 2006 Active People survey - key result
Survey Question Brent (LA) London National
At least 3 days a week x 30 minutes moderate participation (all adults) 18.0% 21.3% 21.0%
At least 2 days a week x 30 minutes moderate participation (all adults) 6.4% 7.7% 7.8%
At least 1 day a week x 30 minutes moderate participation (all adults) 34.4% 41.1% 40.6%
Zero participation in sport or moderate physical activity 56.5% 49.5% 50.6%
Over the past four weeks have done any sports voluntary work
(all adults)
2.7% 3.5% 4.7%
Over the past four weeks have been a member of a club (all adults) 20.5% 26.2% 25.1%
Over the past 12 months have received tuition from an instructor or coach to
improve performance in any sports and recreational physical activities.
(all adults)
Over the past 12 months have taken part in organised competition for any
sports and recreational physical activities. (all adults)
Satisfaction with local sports provision (all adults)
Overall satisfaction with sport provision in the local area (all adults)
13.4% 19.2% 18.0%
10.3% 13.1% 15.0%
52.7% 66.1% 69.5%
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
20

21
Brent is in the bottom national quartile for club membership, tuition and competition rates. Satisfaction rates with local
sports provision in Brent are very low; just 52.7% are satisfied which is 13% less than the London average and 17%
less than the national satisfaction rate as shown in table 5 below. However, Willesden Sports Centre was not open at
the time of the survey and therefore there was only one public swimming pool open. Across London there are large
discrepancies between satisfaction scores and 3 x 30 minutes participation rates; the two do not appear to always be
correlated.
Table 5: 2006 Active People survey - Sports provision satisfaction levels results
Satisfaction with local sports provision (all adults) Brent (LA) London National
All 52.7% 66.1% 69.5%
Male 55.8% 65.2% 69.2%
Female 49.6% 67.0% 69.9%
16 to 34 53.8% 64.1% 65.8%
35 to 54 49.0% 64.6% 68.5%
55 and over 57.5% 72.5% 74.8%
White 50.7% 66.2% 70.0%
Non white 54.4% 65.6% 64.8%
Limiting disability 45.7% 63.4% 66.0%
No limiting disability 53.4% 66.4% 70.1%
NS-SEC 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 (A) 46.0% 64.0% 68.9%
NS-SEC 3 (B) 49.3% 66.4% 69.6%
NS-SEC 4 (C1) 57.0% 69.0% 70.8%
NS-SEC 5,6,7,8 (C2DE) 59.0% 68.8% 70.2%
The 2006 Active People survey allows an analysis of Brent’s geographical and statistical neighbours and also those with
similar scores on the Indices of Multiple Deprivation table.
Brent’s participation rate is lower than those of the neighbouring local authorities. The table below shows that
only Harrow has similarly low levels of participation whilst Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and
Westminster score considerably higher.
Table 6: 2006 Active People survey results, Brent’s surrounding Borough’s
Borough Percentage 3 x 30
participation
Kensington & Chelsea (LA) 27.9 39.4
Hammersmith & Fulham (LA) 25.4 40.8
Westminster (LA) 25.1 44.9
Camden (LA) 24.6 40.5
Barnet (LA) 21.7 48.8
Ealing (LA) 21.2 49.6
Harrow (LA) 18.6 52.8
Brent (LA) 18 56.5
London (REG) 21.3 49.5
National (NAT) 21 50.6
Percentage zero x 30
participation

Chapter Two A profile of Brent
The Office of National Statistics identifies four London authorities which it calls our regional statistical neighbours and
these are Lambeth, Newham and Tower Hamlets and we can therefore compare our participation results with these
similar authorities.
Table 7: 2006 Active People survey results, Brent’s regional statistical neighbours
Participation rates for Brent and it’s statistical neighbours
Location Percentage 3 x 30
participation
Percentage zero x
30 participation
Comparing Brent to similar statistical neighbours in London satisfaction scores are lower than elsewhere, but as can be
seen from Newham’s scores, high levels of satisfaction doesn’t necessarily equate to high levels of 3 x 30 participation.
However as a general rule satisfaction levels increase with adult participation rates.
London’s parks and open spaces play host to a diverse range of formal and informal activities. Merit therefore lies in
analysing the correlation between green space and participation levels to determine future priorities for LB Brent.
Table 8: 2006 Active People survey results, green space and participation rates
Percentage club
membership
Lambeth 25.6 44.2 25.3 61.4
Tower Hamlets 19.7 50.9 21.5 61.7
Brent 18 56.5 20.5 52.7
Newham 14.5 60.8 16.5 72.6
London (REG) 21.3 49.5 26.2 66.1
National (NAT) 21 50.6 25.1 69.5
Borough Population AP score Total Area
(m²)
Parks and
Open space
% of
Total area
Percentage
satisfaction
score
As the table above demonstrates, there is a considerable amount of green and open space across Brent. In relation to
the boroughs statistical neighbours Brent is the largest borough by area and 12% of the borough is covered by parks
and open space. Only Newham has a higher area of parks and open space per person.
Continuing the review of factors with potential influence over participation levels, there is value in reviewing cycling
levels within Brent, against the regional statistical neighbours.
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
Parks and
Open Space
Per person
Tower Hamlets 196,121 19.7 19,700,000 2,240,000 11.4 11.4m²
Newham 243,737 14.5 36,100,000 7,170,000 19.87 29.4m²
Lambeth 266,170 25.6 26,730,000 2,240,000 8.39 8.4m²
Brent 263,463 18.0 43,250,000 5,220,000 12.11 19.8m²
22

23
Table 9: 2006 Active People survey results, cycling
30min continuous cycle in 4 weeks preceding interview
Local Authority Percent
Lambeth 16.2
Tower Hamlets 10.9
Brent (LA) 9.2
Newham 7.1
London 10.8
National 11.1
Indoor Sports Participation
Table 10: 2006 Active People survey results, indoor sports participation rates
Participation in Indoor Sport in the last 4 weeks (%)
As can be seen, there is a pronounced difference between cycling levels
in Brent and Brent’s statistical neighbours in London. Lambeth has 7%
more of their borough cycling continuously for 30 minutes at least once
in a month, with Newham being the only London borough scoring lower.
Individual Sports Participation
The Active People survey provides information showing the percentage of
the population at national, regional and local level that had participated
in a particular sport/activity within the 4 weeks preceding survey. The
findings are highly valuable in helping to provide an indication of the
demand for specific activities and so demand for specific sports facilities.
The table below sets out the findings against the National and regional
averages for indoor sports and other activities participation levels.
Sport type Brent London National
Badminton 0.9 1.9 2.2
Basketball 1.5 1.1 0.7
Dance Studio based activities 7.1 6.8 5.8
Gym 9.0 13.5 10.5
Indoor Bowls 0.0 0.3 0.6
Indoor Football 1.4 1.6 2.0
Indoor Swimming/ Diving 9.5 11.5 12.2
Squash 0.7 1.1 1.2
Volleyball 0.2 0.2 0.2
At a borough wide level Brent is on the whole below average in terms of participation in key indoor sports. Basketball
has the highest participation levels and is above the national and London average as is dance studio based activities.
Gym based activities are lower than the national and London average as is swimming although this is not surprising
as there was only one public pool open in the Borough during the survey period. Indoor football, bowls and squash
have slightly lower participation rates than the London and national average but badminton has significantly lower
participation rates and this will need to be considered when analysing the current supply of facilities.

Outdoor Sports Participation
Chapter Two A profile of Brent
Table 11: 2006 Active People survey results, outdoor
sports and activities participation rates
Participation in Outdoor Sport and Activities in the
last 4 weeks (%)
Sport type Brent London National
Athletics track and field based activities 0.3 0.2 0.1
Cricket 1.5 0.9 0.9
Gaelic Football 0.1 0.1 0.0
Outdoor Bowls 0.2 0.2 0.5
Outdoor Football 5.7 6.0 5.8
Rugby League and Rugby Union 0.3 0.7 1.0
Running and Jogging 5.4 7.1 5.1
Tennis 2.1 3 2.1
Walking 0.1 0.2 0.3
The outdoor participation rates are mixed, with
participation in activities such as cricket and athletics
being higher than the national and regional averages.
Other sports, such as outdoor bowls and rugby have
lower participation rates than the national and regional
averages and the rest of the sports including tennis and
football follow the trends of the national rather than
regional benchmarks.
Sports Clubs
There are a variety of different sports clubs in Brent
offering opportunities for adults and juniors in activities
as varied as athletics to volleyball. The Sports Service
website includes a free Sports Club Directory which
currently has over 90 clubs registered. However it is
recognised that the number of sports clubs in Brent is
lower than other London Boroughs. This correlates with
the Active people survey where only 20% of Brent adults
are members of a club compared to over 26% across
London.
Young people’s Sports Participation
The Active People survey only surveyed adults over the
age of 16 and therefore misses a significant percentage
of Brent’s residents from the survey. Furthermore it is
recognised that developing a healthy habit of physical
activity at a young age is more likely for that person to
remain physically active into adulthood and older age.
Within Brent there are two School Sports Partnerships
(SSP’s) which were introduced in 2002. These, together
with the provision of an advisory teacher for PE, have
had a momentous impact on both the quantity and
quality of overall provision of PE in Brent. In 2003 only
24% of Brent’s primary and secondary school pupils were
receiving two hours quality PE. In 2007, 83% of pupils
aged 5-16 years participated in at least two hours of
high quality PE and out of hour’s school sport in a typical
week. The target for 2008 is for 85% of Brent pupils to
receive 2 hours quality PE and this target has recently
been set for all schools to a higher standard of 5 hours of
PE and sports activity.
Aside from school sports days, 59% of pupils in Brent
schools were involved in intra-school sports activities. The
average number of sports provided by each Brent school
during 2006/07 was 15, and the most widely available
sports were football, dance, gymnastics, athletics,
cricket, basketball and rounders. The biggest increases in
availability of sports have been for multi-skill clubs, golf,
tennis, gymnastics, basketball and fitness. On average
each Brent school has links to 7 different sports clubs
and 10% of pupils in Years 1 – 13 have been involved in
sports volunteering and leadership during the 2006/07
academic year.
Chapter Two - A Profile of Brent
24

25
The development of facilities for sport and physical activity should
always be set within a wide reaching strategic context. This section
sets out the context for any development of sport, leisure and
physical activity in Brent from a National, sub regional and local
level perspective, providing a summary of the content of relevant
strategies.
National Context
Game Plan
Published in December 2002, this document was produced
jointly by the Government’s Strategy Unit and the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It is a strategy for delivering the
Government’s sport and physical activity objectives and specifically
addresses two interlinked areas. Firstly, it aims for a significant
increase in adult participation in sport and physical activity - 70%
of the population to be active by 2020 (participating 3 x 30mins
per week). Secondly, it aims to achieve a sustainable increase in the
level of success at international competition. Support is given to any
reform required to achieve these targets.
The subtext of Game Plan is that through sport and physical activity
the quality of life of marginalised groups in society can be improved.
It is hoped that a wider population can become healthier, better
educated, gain employment, and can be diverted from anti-social
behaviour.
Sport England
Sport England’s Strategy: Grow, Sustain, Excel (2008-2011) provides
a shift change for Sport England from promoting physical activity
which is covered by a vast array of different departments to focusing
exclusively on sport and ‘creating a vibrant sporting culture in
England’. The London 2012 Olympics have been a major influence on
the strategy to enable England to be a world leader in the community
sports system.
The key themes identified in the strategy are:
1. A seamless pathway from school to community to elite: working
with the Youth Sport Trust to help with reducing the drop off in
participation at the age of 16 , plans to develop a modern sports
club network, and making sure talent systems are linked with elite
programmes.
2. National Governing Bodies (NGB’s) will be at the heart of delivery
and funded via a simple single pot: NGB’s will have greater autonomy
over the investment of public funds into their sport, and will be given
a single four year grant to deliver outcomes.
3. More Frontline coaching – deployed expertly: working with Sport
Coach UK, the Youth Sports Trust and NGBs.
4. The English passion for volunteering will be maximised – working
with NGBs, and broader voluntary sector to remove burdens and

Chapter Three Strategic Context
attract an additional 8000 volunteers.
5. A modern network of sports clubs will be the
centrepiece of people’s sporting experience: working with
NGBs and partners such as the Football Foundation to
develop multi-sports clubs.
6. Creating opportunity for all
7. A simplified way of working that will reduce
bureaucracy and release more funding into frontline
delivery: developing centres of excellence
Clear set of measurable achievements to pursue and
deliver, including:
• 1 million people doing more sport by 2012 -13
• A reduction in post 16 drop-off in at least five sports by
25% by 2012-13
• A quantifiable increase in satisfaction
• Improved talent development systems in at least 25
sports
• A major contribution to the delivery of the Five Hour
Sport Offer
London 2012
The Olympic and Paralympics Games will take place in
England in 2012. Although focusing many of the events
and new facilities in East London, the Olympics will be
using venues across London (including Wembley Stadium
and Wembley Arena) and across England e.g. sailing in
Weymouth, and mountain biking in Essex. Hosting the
Olympics and Paralympics is likely to enthuse, inspire and
motivate people and create a buzz about this amazing
event. Legacy plans are currently being developed to
ensure that this enthusiasm continues after the Games.
The Games themselves will provide new infrastructure
for sport in England, particularly in East London. Some of
the infrastructure will be moved to other areas to insure
the facilities continue to be used and provided to areas
in particular sporting need e.g. swimming training pools
and stadia
Participation and Health
The Choosing Health (2004) White Paper published by
the Department of Health addresses the factors which
contribute to significant inequalities in the distribution
of health. Findings show how socio-economic status,
geographical location and lifestyle issues impact upon
levels of physical activity and inactivity. Following this, the
consultation paper Choosing Health? Choosing Activity?
(March 2005) aimed to identify and promote a variety
of physical activities for all to achieve health benefits.
The paper is supportive of the need to increase levels of
physical activity among all people but, like Game Plan,
pays particular attention to under-represented groups.
Participation and Crime Reduction
A common link can often be made between young
people and crime, disengagement and boredom. National
research demonstrates that involvement in sport can
engage people in a positive way, occupying time in a
constructive manner and reducing the likelihood of
re-offending. The most important element in engaging
young people in this way is the provision of facilities
and activities in which they are keen to participate from
an early age. This concept is noted within ‘Teaming Up
– Joint working between sport and neighbourhood
renewal practitioners’ (OPDM Neighbourhood Renewal
Unit 2004):
‘One of the greatest strengths of sport is the
role it can play in preventing future problems.
For example, intervening in the life of a young
person at an early stage can reduce the risk
that they will get involved in crime or anti-social
behaviour. Preventing this behaviour can reduce
repair bills from vandalism, save police and court
time, and lessen the fear of crime.’
Participation and Education
The National PE, School Sport and Club Links Strategy
(PESSCL) (2003) and Strategy Update (2004) promote
the principle of equality through the delivery of high
quality PE and school sport (including dance). The overall
objectives of the strategy are to increase the percentage
of 5-16 year olds who spend a minimum of two hours
each week participating in high quality PE and school
sport, within and beyond the curriculum, from 25% in
2002 to 75% in 2006 and 85% in 2008. Recently the
target for all schools has been set higher at 5 hours of
sports and activity. This calls into question the variety,
quality and amount of school and community based
facility provision available to meet these targets in and
out of school hours.
Planning for Sport
Planning Policy Guidance Note - Sport, Recreation and
Open Space PPG 17 (September 2001) refers to the
need for local authorities to consult Sport England
about developments that affect land used as playing
fields. Sport England has a long commitment to and
involvement in the land use planning system.
Planning objectives acknowledge the importance of open
spaces, sport and recreation and state that ‘well designed
Chapter Three - Strategic Context 26

27
and implemented’ planning policies are ‘fundamental to
delivering broader Government objectives’. Commonality
with Government and national sports policy is expected,
particularly in relation to:
• Promotion of social inclusion and community
cohesion – well planned and maintained open spaces
and good quality sports and recreational facilities can
play a major part in improving people’s sense of well
being in the place they live. Any developments of sports
facilities will have the potential to increase this sense
of well being. Equally, closure of any facilities have the
potential to reduce social inclusion and community
cohesion.
• Health and well being – open spaces, sports
and recreational facilities have a vital role to play
in promoting healthy living and preventing illness.
The demographic profile of Brent in chapter 2 of
the strategy identified health inequalities across
the borough that should be considered in context
with planned investments into the sports facility
infrastructure, including parks and open space.
• Promoting more sustainable development – by
ensuring that open spaces, sports and recreational
facilities (particularly in urban areas) are easily accessible
by walking and cycling and that more heavily used or
intensive sports and recreational facilities are planned
for locations well served by public transport. This theme
(the need for facility provision to be locally and easily
accessible), in conjunction with the indicators of the
CPA assessment, underpins much of the subsequent
analysis of existing facility provision alongside current
and future areas of demand.
Audit Commission Comprehensive
Performance Assessment (CPA) 2005
Every year the Audit Commission assesses the overall
performance of each Local Authority on the basis of
how well the Council is run, how its main services are
performing and how it uses resources.
Previously, there had been little performance information
on sport and active recreation included within CPA
assessments. Performance indicators for sport and
physical activity (as part of the culture block) have
now been developed in line with the DCMS national
participation public service agreement (PSA) targets
that are also reflected in the Framework for Sport and
Regional Plans. Data for the following indicators is now
available through the National Benchmarking Service,
Active Places and the Active People survey:
1. Participation
2. Volunteering
3. Equity
4. Value for Money
5. Choice and Opportunity
The Choice and Opportunity indicator refers specifically
to the location and quality of sports facility provision
for local residents and will be discussed in greater detail
within borough-wide facility audit.
Regional Context
Pro-Active West London
One of London’s five sub-regional sport and physical
activity partnerships was established in May 2006.
Its key aim is
‘to coordinate the delivery of sport and active recreation
across the West London sub-region, driving increased
participation in sport and physical activity at all levels for
all people in Brent, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham,
Harrow, Hillingdon and Hounslow.’
The over-riding strategic priorities of the Pro-Active West
London Partnership apply directly to key objectives that
underpin the need to review sports facility provision in
Brent, they are:
• To increase overall participation by adults in sport and
physical activity
• To increase participation by all under-represented
groups
• To provide the structures for individuals to realise their
sporting potential
The West London Alliance (WLA)
This comprises the boroughs of Brent, Ealing,
Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon and
Hounslow. The key aims of the WLA are:
• To lobby for the interests of the sub-region
• To develop collaborative strategies and initiatives on key
issues such as transport and economic development
• To improve provision of public services in West London
through sharing knowledge, expertise and resources,
undertaking joint ventures, and securing additional
resources
Improving sports facilities across the sub-region is a key
priority shared by both the WLA and Pro-active West

Chapter Three Strategic Context
London. Particular focus is placed upon ensuring that
maximum benefit for local residents and businesses
can be secured from the lead up to, and legacy of, the
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Key objectives
include, amongst others, an increase in participation and
achievement in sport among West London’s residents,
developing community sports events, building links with
schools and improving skills and developing training,
employment and volunteer opportunities.
Improving sports facilities in West London is a strategic
priority of the region in the run-up to London 2012
and undoubtedly an opportune moment for LB Brent
to address the quality of its own provision in this area.
Support should be sought from the WLA and Proactive
West London with any developments under
consideration.
Local Context
At a local level, the potential for sport to achieve some
of the borough’s most important social and economic
objectives is emphasised heavily within the key policy
documents.
Brent’s Community Strategy 2006-2010
Brent’s Community Strategy produced by Brent’s Local
Strategic Partnership, sets out how the council and its
partners will meet the needs and aspirations of Brent’s
residents. The strategy has three cross-cutting ambitions
and sport has an identified role in prioritising efforts to
achieve each of these:
A Great Place
• Committed to promoting leisure.
• Improve the quality and accessibility of local parks, play
areas and open spaces, encouraging greater use by all.
• Facilitate opportunities for physical exercise and sport
by reducing barriers to participation and promoting
healthy living
A Borough of Opportunity
• Reducing health inequalities and promoting well being
• Tackle smoking and obesity, reducing the prevalence
and achieving better outcomes for coronary heart
disease, diabetes and cancer.
An Inclusive Community
• Provide services that are fully inclusive, accessible and
sensitive to the unique cultural diversity of our young
population
• To enable residents to lead more active lives and
providing services that are sensitive to our diverse
community’s needs.
• Improve the health and fitness of Brent’s residents in
order to secure a more active and independent future
for everyone.
The Corporate Strategy 2006 - 20010
This sets out the Council’s administrations vision, priorities
and ambitions for Brent up until 2010.
The vision for Brent is that it will be:
• A Great Place
(A safe place, a clean place, a green place, a lively place)
• A Borough of Opportunity
(Local employment and enterprise, health and well being,
help when you need it)
• One Community
(settled homes, early excellence, civic leadership,
community engagement, building our capacity)
Through a range of actions the Council is focused on
enhancing the quality of life for everyone who lives or
works in Brent. During the period 2006 to 2010 the
Council’s main priorities include a number of priorities
that specifically refer to sport and physical activity:
A great place
• Creating a borough that is a great place to live, which
is safe, clean and green with an accessible range of
leisure and recreational facilities.
A clean place
• We will raise the standards of provision for playground
and youth facilities in local parks and improve access to
pocket parks and open spaces across the borough.
A lively place
• Access to high quality, affordable sports facilities is
critical to maintaining health and well-being.
• Working with our health partners, we will encourage
more adults to take part in physical exercise and
continue to improve the quality of our sports centres.
• Through our sports strategy we will be working with
schools and clubs to increase the range of sporting
activities available in the borough with a particular
focus on under-represented sports and groups.
Chapter Three - Strategic Context
28

29
• We will develop a programme of activities to ensure
local people benefit from the 2012 Olympics and
Paralympics.
Health and well-being
• We will encourage and support local people to make
healthier life choices, through programmes to reduce
smoking, promote healthy eating and take part in
physical activities.
• Our focuses will be on providing social care services that
enable people to maintain an active life, participating in
leisure and recreation activities within an inclusive local
community.
Community engagement
• We also want to support and encourage individuals
to take an active role within their communities and
are working with the voluntary sector to promote
volunteering and citizenship projects.
A Strategy for Sport and Physical Activity in Brent 2004
- 2009
This was produced with the objective of co-ordinating
the delivery of key services and agreeing key priorities to
maximise the opportunities and benefits associated with
the development of sport and physical activity in Brent.
Priorities and actions detailed within the strategy revolve
around six key themes:
1. Promoting the health benefits of an active lifestyle
2. Increasing awareness of sports opportunities
3. Ensuring sports facilities are fit for purpose
4. Reducing barriers to participation and ensuring equity
in sport
5. Supporting and developing local sports clubs
6. Increasing sports opportunities for young people
Priority target groups were identified within the strategy
to focus work to increase levels of participation and
these are: young people, older people, black and ethnic
minority groups, people with disabilities, and women
and girls. Eight priority sports were also chosen with
whom steering groups have been established and sports
specific development plans written. These sports are:
athletics, basketball, cricket, football, martial arts, netball,
swimming and tennis.
This strategy is currently being reviewed and consultation
undertaken such that a new strategy will be written and
implemented in 2009.
Success in Brent - Regeneration Annual
Review 2005-2006
This review identifies the main aim of the Brent
Regeneration team to improve the quality of life of all of
Brent’s residents, workers and visitors. Regeneration work
is focused within 5-6 key areas: Stonebridge, Harlesden,
St Raphael’s, Brentfield and Mitchell Brook, Church End
and South Kilburn. Priorities and issues identified within
the Action Plan and focus areas for future development
include the following:
• Promoting employment opportunities.
• Promoting renewal in our priority neighbourhoods.
• Reducing fear of crime within priority areas.
• Delivering Wembley.
The Brent Parks Strategy 2004 - 2009
This sets out a policy framework for the development
of Brent’s parks over a five year period, linking in with
the Council’s wider strategic priorities. The following
section considers the importance of public open space
in contributing to increases in informal (and formal)
participation, which is pertinent to our overall review of
facilities within Brent.
The scope of the Parks Strategy includes public parks,
public open spaces, children’s play areas and allotments.
The four key themes with associated objectives that have
emerged are provision of parks, maintenance, funding
and participation.
Brent Playing Pitch Strategy
Guidance on planning and providing for playing fields for
team sports within Brent up until 2008 is provided within
the Brent Playing Pitch Strategy 2003 - 2008. Projections
for future demand have been made using sports
development targets and a 10% growth in the current
Team Generation Rates and should be considered in the
context of borough-wide need. The document made key
recommendations including
• protecting playing pitch land
• provide pitches in East, West and South of Brent;
upgrade facilities
• prioritises upgrading of existing ancillary sports facilities
• improve school access to pitches
• convert underused senior pitches into junior and mini
soccer pitches

• improve school pitches
Chapter Three Strategic Context
• develop partnership opportunities to secure future
investment
• seek further 106 funding opportunities
• work with clubs and governing bodies to create more
funding opportunities
• modernise booking systems to increase accessibility for
users
• review sports pitch charges
Brent Council’s Unitary Development
Plan 2004 - 2009
The plan has 10 key objectives, one of which is protecting
open space and promoting sport. The key policies related
to sports facilities are:
• STR 34 - Development which leads to a loss of
sports facilities will be refused, apart
from circumstances where appropriate compensatory
provision is secured.
• STR 35 - Improvements to the Borough’s public open
spaces and sports facilities will be promoted, especially
in those areas with a deficiency of quality facilities.
The Local Development Framework is in the process
of being developed. This will replace the Unitary
Development Plan having key strategies linked to sports
both formal and informal. This facility improvement
strategy will be important to form the direction of the
strategies linked to sport, within the Local Development
Framework.
The Cultural Strategy for Brent 2006-2009
This strategy has given strategic priorities for sport in
Brent and they include:
• promote health benefits of an active lifestyle
• increase awareness of sports opportunities
• ensure sports facilities are fit for purpose
• reduce barriers to participation
• support and develop sports clubs
• increase opportunities for young people
• increase participation of underrepresented groups
• increase sports pitches in the East and South Brent
• Improve or provide indoor sports facilities across the
borough
These priorities will be very important when accessing the
sports facilities and identifying if they match up to what
facilities the borough currently have. A new Cultural
Strategy will be produced in 2009 and will need to reflect
the findings of this document.
Health and Well Being Strategy 2008-2018
This outlines priorities and ambitions to improve the
health and wellbeing of Brent’s population over the next
ten years and to remove inequalities to ensure everyone
within the borough has the best possible chance to live
a long, fulfilling and healthy life. The strategy has 6
strategic targets:
1) Reduce gap in life expectancy at birth between the top
5 and bottom 5 neighbourhoods in Brent
2) Reduce rate of coronary heart disease in
neighbourhoods with rates above the Brent average
3) Reduce rates of smoking in neighbourhoods with rates
above the Brent average
4) Increase number of people participating in physical
activity
5) Increase the average income in Brent
6) Reduce unemployment rate in Brent
7) Reduce the level of Brent’s housing needs
As part of the consultation for the Health and Wellbeing
Strategy 176 responses were received to questions
regarding health and wellbeing. In response to the
question ‘what was their highest priority in relation to
health behaviours’, the highest scores were 27.5 %
- encourage physical activity and 20.5% - encourage
healthy eating. When respondents were asked what ONE
thing could be done to improve their health or that of
their family, the majority of responses were around two
key themes - encouraging healthy eating and providing
cheap and accessible opportunities for physical exercise
or recreation activities.
Wembley Masterplan
In 2004 a Wembley Masterplan was written which
identified the following objectives:
Chapter Three - Strategic Context
30

• Promoting Wembley as a major visitor destination
• Deliver a world class setting for a world class stadium
• Provide a development for local people
• Create better linkages
• Promote Wembley as the most accessible destination
• Promote best practice in sustainable development
• Achieve a business Wembley
This plan has subsequently been updated in 2008 such
that the plans purpose is now to:
• To provide a flexible framework that is able to respond
to change in demand over time;
• To promote the redevelopment of the Wembley
Masterplan Area whilst ensuring that the development
encompasses innovative, high quality and sustainable
design, construction and operation;
• To offer guidance on appropriate land uses and scale of
development;
• To set out a strategy for the provision of open space
and landscaping;
• To develop principles for the creation of a high quality
streets & spaces;
• To produce a strategy for the future transportation
infrastructure of the area and encourage sustainable
modes of travel including public transport, walking and
cycling;
• To establish the impact of potential future development
and set out future community infrastructure
requirements;
• To assist the Local Planning Authority in the
consideration and determination of future planning
applications in the area, through the provision of a clear
and usable guidance document;
South Kilburn Masterplan
This plan, written in 2004, sets the physical framework
for area-wide physical change in South Kilburn. It
includes proposals for new housing development and
refurbishment, opportunities for transport improvements
and enhancements to local streets and public spaces. The
developments highlighted are nearly 3,000 new homes,
31
and provision of community facilities for health, sports,
education, youth provision and retail. It also sets out a
planning guide to help with planning decisions regarding
new developments in the area.
Children and Young People’s Plan
The CYPP is Brent’s strategic document setting out the
vision and six local priorities for children and young
people in Brent in order to achieve the five “Every Child
Matters” outcomes. Initially written in 2006 and reviewed
and refreshed in 2007 it is designed to achieve an
integrated approach to strategic planning
The revised vision is:
To promote the safety and wellbeing of all
children and young people in Brent through
the provision of services that are integrated and
focus on early intervention and prevention but
provide protection when needed. For all children
and young people in Brent to be able to realise
their dreams and live up to their true potential.
The six strategic priorities remain the same:
1. Creating the conditions in which Children and Young
People thrive
2. Early Years Development
3. Education, Achievement & School Improvement
4. Support for Young People and Teenagers
5. Focus on Excluded and Vulnerable groups
6. Safeguarding, Health & Well Being
A number of the objectives within the six
priorities are linked to providing accessible
sports and leisure facilities and improving health
and fitness and promoting healthy lifestyles.
Brent Youth Parliament
Brent’s Youth Parliament (BYP) was established in March
2007 as the elected voice of young people in Brent. Their
manifesto identifies three priorities for Brent: crime and
safety, health and well being, and sports and leisure. The
key issues identified by the Brent youth parliament in
relation to sports and leisure are:
• BYP believes that more sports activities need to be
made available for girls and for young people with
disabilities
• BYP believes that in order to encourage more young
people to get involved in sports, Brent sports centres
should run free taster sessions and have free kids days
in their sports centres
• BYP feels that more swimming pools are needed in

Chapter Three Strategic Context
Brent as well as access to different types of physical
activities such as dancing.
They have put together a petition calling for more
swimming pools in Brent
Priority Neighbourhoods Survey
This survey was undertaken in Brent’s two neighbourhood
renewal areas: Stonebridge and Brentfields / St Raphaels.
The survey was conducted in 2007 and enabled results to
be compared to results from a similar survey in 2005. The
key results in relation to sport and physical activity were:
• Minimal change has occurred regarding how often
respondents take part in physical exercise or sport in
our priority neighbourhoods.
• Stonebridge has the largest percentage of people which
has never participated in exercise (54%).
• The most common activity through which residents take
part in exercise is walking and numbers participating
have increased by 10% in 2007.
Outdoor gym
14%
Tennis courts
14%
Somewhere to
make suggestions
17%
Other ideas
10%
Multi-use games area
11%
Somewhere to
complain 12%
Marked walls
26%
Trim trail
9%
Jogging routes
16%
Other 6% Playing surfaces
22%
Changing facilties
16%
Satisfaction with sports and leisure facilities has
significantly improved since 2005 in our priority
neighbourhoods. The number of respondents very
satisfied increased by 10% and the number of
respondents satisfied increased by 29%. greatly reducing
the number of people either dissatisfied or neither.
Brentfields / St Raphael’s is the area with the lowest
percentage of respondents satisfied.
Annual Parks survey
An annual survey is undertaken by the Parks service
and in 2008 it included questions in relation to sport
and physical activity. Approximately 700 responses were
received and the key findings are detailed below:
• 52% of Park users said they exercised 3 or more times
a week and 47% of non parks users said 3 or more
times a week.
• 26% of park users wanted to see marked walks in their
parks whilst 16% wanted to see jogging routes. All
results are shown in the pie chart below.
Graph 3: Parks survey respondent’s preferences for facilities that would encourage residents to take part in more
physical exercise
• 27% of respondents wanted to see all weather surfaces within the parks and 17% wanted somewhere where they
could make suggestions to improve their parks sports provision.
Graph 4: Parks survey respondents preferences for improvements
All weather
surfaces 27%
Chapter Three - Strategic Context
32

33
There are two marketing tools that Brent has access to that analyse
the local population and identifies ‘types’ or ‘groups’ of people within
the borough. This useful information can make recommendations
on what sports provision different groups prefer and can be used to
identify need, based on the type of people who live there.
Mosaic
The first tool, Mosaic, analyses the profile of the borough and
classifies all United Kingdom households and postcodes into 61
distinct types. Mosaic was developed under the principle that there
are various types of neighbourhoods with similar characteristics
for example tenure, income, age and employment, and if a
neighbourhood has similar characteristics then their needs for sports
facilities may also be similar.
There are four main population ‘types’ identified in Brent. These are:
1. Mosaic Type D27 - Multi-cultural inner city terraces attracting
second generation settlers from diverse communities
2. Mosaic Type C20 - Suburbs sought after by the more successful
members of the Asian community.
3. Mosaic Type E28 - Neighbourhoods with transient singles living
in multiple occupied large old houses
4. Mosaic Type F36 - High density social housing, mostly in inner
London, with high levels of diversity
Mosaic Type D27 – Multi-cultural inner city terraces attracting
second generation settlers from diverse communities.
Type D27’s are the largest Mosaic type in Brent with 24,515 (22.9%)
households. They are classified as very young with children with some
in service sector jobs but unemployment is high and many on income
support. They are located throughout the borough as represented
on the map below. The biggest concentration of this group is in the
Harlesden, Kensal Green, Willesden Green and Stonebridge wards.
They eat a reasonably good diet, smoking and alcohol consumption
is average and they are the biggest group that take part in any active
leisure pursuits. There are significantly likely to take part in activities
such as football, cricket, aerobic classes, netball and racquet sports.
Pointing towards facilities such as tennis courts, cricket pitches,
football pitches and MUGA’s. Location wise this group would match
up with the ‘Kev’ segment of Sport England’s tool which will be
discussed shortly.

Chapter Four Market Segmentation
Map 11: Location of mosaic type D27 in Brent
Brent Mosaic Type D27
Close-knit Inner City
& Manufacturing
Northwick
Park
Sudbury
Kenton
Preston
Wembley
Central
Barnhill
Queensbury
Fryent
Tokyngton
Welsh Harp
Harlesden
Stonebridge
Mosaic Type C20 – Suburbs sought after by the
more successful members of the Asian community.
Type C20 are the second largest Mosaic type in
Brent with 22,313 (20.9%) households. They are
predominantly to the north of the borough in wards
such as Queensbury, Tokyngton, Alperton, Wembley
Central, Sudbury, and Preston as illustrated in the
map below. They are classified as families with an
Asian background, well educated, white collar jobs,
and live in suburban areas. They have a mixed diet and
smoking and alcohol consumption is low compared
to the national average. However, they lead relatively
inactive lifestyles with little formal physical activity.
They are more likely to take part in sports such as
badminton, cricket, yoga, and football, hence, will
need good quality, easily accessible facilities.
Map 12: Location of mosaic type C20 in Brent
Brent Mosaic Type
C20 Older Families
living in Suburbia
Northwick Park
Kenton
Sudbury
Preston
Alperton
Wembley Central
Alperton
Queensbury
Barnhill
Tokyngton
Fryent
Stonebridge
Welsh Harp
Harlesden
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Dollis Hill
Dudden Hill Mapesbury
Willesden
Green
Brondesbury Park
Kensal Green
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Dollis Hill
Dudden Hill
Willesden Green
Kensal Green
Mapesbury
Queen’s Park
Brondesbury Park
Kilburn
Queen’s Park
Mosaic Type E28 – Neighbourhoods with transient
singles living in multiple occupied large old houses
Type E28 are the third most frequently occurring group in
the borough. There are 17,169 households of this type,
which is 16.1% of all households. They predominantly
live in the south of the borough in Kilburn, Mapesbury,
Willsden Green, Brondesbury, Kensal Green, Queens Park,
and Harlesden. They are classified as young professionals,
well educated, some good jobs but lower incomes.
They have the awareness of a healthy lifestyle and many
belong to local health and fitness facilities. They are active
but not overly active. They are more likely to participate
in activities such as badminton, aerobic classes, football,
cricket, gym, tennis and athletics. This group has some
characteristics as a mix of ‘Chloe’ and ‘Jamie’ in
Sport England’s market segmentation tool and
will need health and fitness facilities, sports
Kilburn
halls, dance studios and outdoor sports pitches
located in these areas to encourage them to do
more physical activity and sport.
Map 13: Location of mosaic type E28 in Brent
Brent Mosaic Type
E28 Educated Young
Single People
Northwick \
Park
Kenton
Sudbury
Preston
Barnhill
Wembley Central
Alperton
Queensbury
Fryent
Tokyngton
Stonebridge
Welsh Harp
Harlesden
Dollis Hill
Mosaic Type F36 – High density social housing,
mostly in inner London, with high levels of
diversity.
Type F36 are the fourth most frequently occurring group
in Brent with 11,980 households the equivalent to 11.2%
of all households. They predominately live in the south
of the borough in Stonebridge, Kilburn, Harlesden, and
Barnhill wards. This group is of a young age profile, single
or co-habitees, with many children, mixture of ethnicity
and suffer from high unemployment or modest
Market Segmentation
Legend
Willesden Green
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Dudden Hill Mapesbury
Brondesbury Park
Kensal Green Queen’s Park
Kilburn
34

35
incomes. They tend to suffer from health problems
related to heavy smoking, not eating well and leading
very inactive lifestyles. This is the most deprived group.
The activities they are more likely to be interested in are
football, cricket, weight lifting, and aerobic classes.
Map 14: Location of mosaic type F36
Brent Mosaic Type
F36 People Living in
Social Housing
Northwick Park
Sudbury
Kenton
Preston
Barnhill
Wembley Central
Alperton
Queensbury
Tokyngton
Fryent
Stonebridge
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Welsh Harp
Harlesden
Harrow
Dudden Hill
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Dollis Hill
Willesden Green
Mapesbury
Brondesbury Park
Kensal Green Queen’s Park
Wealdstone
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
Kilburn
Sport England’s Market Segmentation Tool
The second tool is produced by Sport England which
gives an insight into sporting behaviours and the barriers
and the motivations for taking part in sport. SE worked
with Experian to analyse data on the English population
(18+) and produced 19 market segments with distinct
sporting behaviours and attitudes. The information
provided includes specific sports people tend to take
part in, motivation for taking part in sport, barriers to
taking part in sport, media influences, consumption,
communication channels, social channels, health
indicators and engagement in sport, (the data provided
by Sport England doesn’t take into consideration people
under the age of 18 within the 19 different segments).
Sport England have produced specific maps of Brent
showing places where the 19 different segments
predominantly live. For more detailed information about
Sport England’s market segmentation tools look on their
website at www.sportengland.org
Map 15: Dominant market segmentation map for
Brent within the lower super output areas.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster

Chapter Four Market Segmentation
Jamie
The dominant groups in the borough are illustrated
clearly on map 15 with large areas being coloured in a
light pink which shows the area is dominated by ‘Jamie’
who are classed as ‘Sports Team Drinkers’. These are
mainly located in Tokyngton, Alperton, Queensbury,
Dudden Hill, Dollis Hill, Willesden Green and other
smaller pockets in other areas. Sport England classifies
‘Jamie’ as young men (approximately 20 years of age)
who enjoy football, drinking and pool. The sports which
Map 16: Sport England market segmentation – Jamie
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Wealdstone
Harrow
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
‘Jamie’ is likely to take part in are football, badminton,
basketball, boxing, weight training and martial arts
sports. They are very likely to be members of sports
clubs and less likely to be members of health and fitness
facilities. Their motivation for participation is to be with
friends and improving performance. They are more likely
to do 30 minutes of physical exercise at least 1-2 times
a week. Better sports facilities in areas close to ‘Jamie’
would increase their participation rates in sports.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Chapter Four - Market Segmentation
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster
36

37
Kev
The other dominant group within the borough is ‘Kev’;
an older (40 years of age) male who likes playing pub
league games and watching sport. They are located
vastly in Stonebridge, Harlesden, Willesden Green, Welsh
Harp, and Wembley Central. These are areas which suffer
from high deprivation, including poor health and high
crime levels. The sports which ‘Kev’s’ are more likely to
Map 17: Sport England market segmentation – Kev
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Wealdstone
Harrow
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
participate in are football, darts, karate, snooker, weight
training, boxing, and fishing. This group are unlikely to
participate in 30 minutes of physical exercise a week,
often only participating once a week if they are part of
a social club or there is a social aspect to their sports
participation. They are less likely to be a member of a
health and fitness club.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster

Chapter Four Market Segmentation
Tim
Other dominant groups within the borough include ‘Tim’;
settling down males, 26-35 years of age. They are located
north of the borough in Barnhill, Northwick Park and
central areas close to Wembley Central and Tokyngton.
They are also located south of the borough in Queens
Park, Brondesbury Park and Willesden Green. This group
are very active and like high intensity sports such as
cricket, squash, football, cycling, golfing, watersports
Map 18: Sport England market segmentation – Tim
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Wealdstone
Harrow
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
and skiing. They are likely to have a health and fitness
membership and they take part in sports to improve
performance, to keep fit and meet friends. They are more
likely to do 30 minutes of physical activity at least 1-2
times a week and if they had more time they would do
more. The facilities ‘Tim’s’ are more likely to use include
health and fitness centres, sports halls, football pitches,
cricket pitches, and squash facilities.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Chapter Four - Market Segmentation
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster
38

39
Chloe
The map identifies smaller pockets of ‘Chloe’ classified
as a young (18-25 years of age) image conscious female
keeping fit and keeping trim. Large concentrations
of ‘Chloe’ are located in the south of the borough in
Queens Park and north of the borough in Kenton and
smaller pockets around the borough. This group are very
active and like exercise classes, swimming, gym, aqua
aerobics, running and netball. They are highly likely to
Map 19: Sport England market segmentation – Chloe
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Wealdstone
Harrow
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
be members of a health and fitness facility, they exercise
with people in order to keep trim and lose weight. They
are more likely to do exercise once or twice a week and
if they had more time, facilities were opened longer
or more people to exercise with they would do more
physical activity. The facilities which would benefit these
groups would be health and fitness facilities especially
facilities for exercise classes, swimming pools and sports
halls close to areas where they live.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster

Chapter Four Market Segmentation
Leanne
The last dominant group within the borough according
to the map are ‘Leanne’ who are young (18-25) busy
mums with college friends. They have smaller pockets
throughout the borough located in Queensbury, Fryent,
Tokyngton, Wembley, Dollis Hill, Willesden Green and
Kensal Green. They are one of the least active groups
due to their busy schedules, juggling childcare, college
and work. They are more likely to do zero participation
Map 20: Sport England market segmentation – Leanne
Three
Enfield
Rivers
Barnet
Harrow
South Bucks
Hillingdon
Brent
Haringey
Waltham
Forest
Hackney
Camden
Islington
Slough
Ealing
Hounslow
City of Tower
Westminster Hamlets
Hammersmith
City
and Fulham
Kensington Southwark
and Chelsea
Richmond
Lewisham
upon Thames Wandsworth
Wealdstone
Harrow
Ealing
Perivale
Greenhill
Kenton
Wembley
Using market segmentation information
The two tools described above offer a valuable insight
into the profile of the borough and particularly useful
in analysing what sports certain groups are likely to
participate in and what the potential barriers are stopping
people from leading healthy, active lifestyles. The profiles
in physical activity a week. However if the activities were
cheaper, open for longer and had childcare facilities they
would do more activities. Activities that they are more
likely to participate in are swimming, gym, aerobics,
dance and walking. The facilities that they would more
likely require are swimming pools, health and fitness
facilities, and dance studios, all with creche facilities.
Kingsbury
Brent
Willesden
Harlesden
Hendon
Barnet
Hammersmith Kensington
and Fulham and Chelsea
Chapter Four - Market Segmentation
Golders Green
Camden
City of
Westminster
also give an insight into the type of marketing stream
that each target group is likely to respond to and this
will be able to help with targeted marketing to increase
participation levels.
40

41
This chapter describes Sport England’s various planning tools that
have been used in chapter six to assess levels of supply and demand
for indoor and outdoor facilities within Brent.
To help analyse whether the levels of current provision and provision
in future years will be sufficient to meet population demands, Sport
England has developed a number of strategic planning tools to
help assess demand and provision. As each planning tool method
assesses and calculates demand and provision in a different way it is
important that the information arising from a number of the tools is
used to inform strategic priorities and that readers do not just focus
on the findings of just one tool. Therefore a variety of Sport England’s
planning tools have been used to inform this strategy.
Sports Facility Planning Tools – Descriptions
and Definitions.
Active Places Power - Capacity Ratios
Sport England’s comprehensive nationwide database of sports
facilities ‘Active Places Power’ allows the generation of a ‘Capacity
Ratio’ based upon the frequency of a particular facility per 1000
population within a local authority ward or borough. The Capacity
Ratio gives an indication of current provision levels in relation to
the existing population, which can then be compared against local,
regional and national averages i.e. ‘x’ m2 facility provision per 1000
population. The table provides capacity ratios based on current levels
of facility provision but calculates this against population figures from
2001, 2011 and 2016.
When comparing Brent’s capacity ratios with London and nationally it
only compares calculations with current provision against population
statistics from 2001. This will highlight any significant differences in
provision in Brent compared to average provision elsewhere. It is also
possible to calculate a Capacity Ratio based on Brent’s population
projections. However, this data cannot then be compared against
future regional and national averages as no such projections currently
exist. This method also only looks at capacity within each individual
Borough and does not take into consideration quality of provision or
use of facilities within neighbouring Boroughs
Accessibility – Choice and Opportunity.
Previous national surveys have identified that the majority of facility
users will travel for up to 20 minutes by foot in urban areas to attend
a generic sports facility. Thus it is possible to generate catchment
maps for each facility based on a 1.6km / 20 minute walking travel
distance. It is also possible to generate maps which show in more
detail how many minutes travel time by walking, parts of the
Borough are from specific facilities. By using these maps and plotting
the catchment of each facility it is easy to see at a glance those areas
where people are within easy reach of a specific sports facility and
those areas which are not. For more specialised sports facilities it is
recognised that people will travel considerably further.

Below is an example of a catchment area map that
is used within chapter five. This map draws 1.6km
catchment circles around each Brent facility with different
facility types shaded by a different colour e.g. pay and
play are shown in beige.
Map 21: Example of Brent facility catchment area map
Location of Health and
Fitness Facilities
Map 22: Example of travel time to
facilities map
Symbol
Travel Time
(minutes walking)
0.42 - 4.632
4.633 - 8.844
8.845 - 13.056
13.057 - 17.268
17.269 - 21.48
Chapter Five Planning Tools
Legend
Location of Health and
Fitness Facilities
Ward Boundaries
Pay & Play
Registered Membership Use
Private
Pay & Play Buffer 1.6km
Reg Member Use Buffer 1.6km
Private Buffer 1.6km
Travel Time to Facilities
The Active Places Power website strategic tool ‘travel time
to facilities’ shows personal access to the nearest facility
of a chosen facility type. The outputs show the minimum,
maximum and average distances/time by walking, car
or public transport to the chosen facility type. The tool
produces a map with different coloured triangles to
represents how far people have to travel to their nearest
facility. This tool includes facilities by all access types
including facilities which are private, it also includes
facilities which are outside of the borough.
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Pay & Play
Registered Membership Use
Private
Pay & Play Buffer 1.6km
Reg Member Use Buffer 1.6km
Private Buffer 1.6km
Chapter Five - Planning Tools
42

43
Facilities Planning Model
Sport England’s Facilities Planning Model (FPM) provides
a very comprehensive assessment of levels of supply and
demand for Sports halls and swimming pools only.
The FPM allows an estimation of demand across Brent
and our seven neighbouring boroughs (referred to as the
Study Area). The Model uses current population statistics
for all eight Boroughs and population projections for all
in 2016. The current population statistics that the FPM
have used is based on a population of 274,000 increasing
to 293,400 in 2016, a conservative growth estimate of
19,000 people (6.9% increase).
Detailed current publicly accessible facility provision is
included within the run data together with confirmed
future publicly accessible facility provision for all eight
Boroughs. A strategic modelling tool is then used to
estimate the level of demand for sports facilities within
the local population, comparing this with the supply
of facilities within a given local area. The model takes
into account the size, age and location of the facilities
and highlights any deficiencies in facility provision. The
technique can also be used to model ‘what if’ scenarios,
for instance, the impact of increases in population, the
closure of individual facilities, and the opening of new
facilities.
The FPM estimates ‘demand’ for a sport at the centroid
of enumeration districts (EDS) based on participation
rates and frequency per week in each of the 5/6 age
bands for both males and females, scaled down to the
proportion of demand in the peak period. This produces
a figure for demand at each EDS expressed in ‘visits per
week in the peak period.’ For swimming pools there are
six age bands and five for sports halls for both males
and females. These are considered with frequency and
duration of visit rates together with catchment (access by
either car, foot or public transport) and a distance decay
factor – which is all applied to the population.
The FPM defines ‘unmet demand’ as the demand which
is located outside the catchment area of a facility or is
unmet because the facilities are full, and there simply isn’t
enough sports halls or swimming pools in the borough
compared to how many people require them.
Personal Share
This tool shows the personal share a resident has of their
nearest sports facility. Using distance and capacity, it
will show whether local residents potentially have good
access to facilities. For example, in an urban area, with
lots of facilities and a medium population, the personal
share could be good. However if there was a larger
population and fewer facilities, then personal share
would be poor due to reduced capacity and increased
demand. This tool doesn’t take account of ward
boundaries, just the nearest facility.
Sports Facility Calculator
The Sports Facilities Calculator (SFC) is a planning tool
which helps to estimate the amount of demand for
swimming pools, sports halls and indoor bowl facilities
that is created by a given population. The SFC does
not take into account any existing supply of facilities
including those within neighbouring boroughs, which
might already be taking the demand for the facilities, and
does not take account of the capacity and availability of
facilities, cross boundary movement, travel networks and
attractiveness of facilities. The SFC is designed to be used
to estimate the facility needs of discrete populations,
such as sports halls and swimming pools, created by a
new community of a residential development.
The SFC gives an estimate of how much it would cost
to provide average facilities that are endorsed by Sport
England (but excludes site abnormal costs, land costs and
VAT). The SFC building costs of facilities can be used to
apply for development contributions from developers.
Definitions of Type of Use
A number of the planning tools refer to different types of
use which determines how accessible facilities are to the
public. These different types of use are explained below:
Pay and Play: The main means of public access to the
facility is on payment of a charge, although the facility
may also have a membership scheme, and it may be
possible to block book the facility for a specific activity or
for lessons.
Sports Club/Community Association: The main
means of public access to the facility is via sports clubs or
community associations, which book it for use by their
members. Membership of the club or association is based
on a particular sport or community group and is not
based on performance criteria or on a particular facility.
Registered Membership: The main public access to
the facility is by membership and members usually pay a
joining fee as well as a monthly or annual subscription.
Publicly accessible facilities: This is the joint term for
facilities that are available through Pay and Play, Sports
Club/Community Association usage and Registered
Membership.
Private use: The facility cannot be used by the
public, either through pay and play basis, sports club /
community association or an open registered membership
scheme, except when the facility may be used for
competition and such groups are playing against the
owner of the site.

Chapter Five Planning Tools
Chapter Five - Planning Tools
44

45
The Council is only one of many providers of sports facilities within
the Borough, with facilities provided by a variety of different
organisations from public, private, local education or voluntary.
Facilities provided by this wide range of organisations have been
included in this report.
In order to identify future provision of sport facilities it is important to
analyse the current stock of sports facilities. A web based audit of the
indoor sports facilities was done using Sport England’s Active Places
website information and this was then backed up by extensive desk
based research to ensure the data was correct. This provides a picture
of the current level of provision.
Review of Local Authority Owned
Sports Centres
Consultants were commissioned to conduct a strategic review of
Brent’s sports centres. This review provided information about current
levels of sports provision and gives a summary of the issues facing
three of the Borough’s sports centres; Vale Farm, Charteris and Bridge
Park Community Leisure Centre; with options and recommendations
as to how these issues should be addressed. Willesden Sports Centre
was not included in the review within the options section as it is
a newly built sports centre, nor was Moberly Sports Centre as it is
owned and managed by the City of Westminster even though it is
located within Brent’s borough boundary.
This strategy does not intend to replicate the findings of the
Sports Centre Review report but will reference the basic quantity,
accessibility and quality issues affecting the centres and give a brief
summary of the report’s findings which have been incorporated into
the recommendations of this report.
Quantity
Within the Borough of Brent there are five local authority owned
sports centres. Four of these are owned by Brent and one by the City
of Westminster. The four Brent Council owned facilities are Bridge
Park Community Leisure Centre and Charteris Sports Centre which
are run by Brent Council, plus Vale Farm Sports Centre and Willesden
Sports Centre which are operated on behalf of the Council by a
leisure management contractor. Moberley sports centre, although
located in Brent (Kilburn) is owned and managed by the City of
Westminster.
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre is classified as a mixed
use leisure and community centre. It has a significant amount of
community function space and a large number of ‘business units’
along with a five court sports hall, dance studio and two health and
fitness facilities.
Charteris Sports Centre is a small centre that incorporates a
3 court sports hall, health and fitness facility and a separate free
weights room.

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Vale Farm Sports Centre is a large leisure complex.
The centre includes a floodlit synthetic turf pitch, five
court sports hall, 25m swimming pool and teaching
pool, squash courts, dance studio space, martial
arts dojo, modern health and fitness facilities
and a disused cinder athletics track. The centre
borders Vale Farm Recreation Ground which
contains multiple grass pitches and tennis
courts, several of which are leased to
local clubs.
Willesden Sports Centre is a new mixed
use wet and dry-side leisure centre. The
centre includes an outdoor athletics track,
indoor running tube, 25m swimming pool and
teaching pool, dance studio martial arts dojo
/ multi purpose room and modern health and
fitness facilities. The facility adjoins Capital
city academy and compliments the sports facilities
provided at the school.
Moberly sports and education centre – facilities
provided include a large 6 court sports hall with spectator
seating, a dance studio, a fitness suite, a 6 aside floodlit
synthetic turf pitch, and a multi sensory room.
Accessibility
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre is located in the
South of the borough, within the ward of Stonebridge,
and is in close proximity to the North Circular. It has
excellent public transport links being located on one
of the major bus routes within Brent and is close to
Stonebridge over / underground station. Charteris Sports
Centre is located in a residential area in Kilburn to the
South East of the borough within walking distance of 3
underground stations. Vale Farm sports centre is located
in North Wembley in Sudbury Ward access by train/
underground is poor. Willesden Sports Centre is located
in Willesden Green ward but close to the boundaries of
Kensal Green and Brondesbury Park Ward. Access by train
/ underground is poor. Moberly sports centre is located
south of the borough in Kensal Rise in Queens Park ward.
The map above shows the location of Brent’s local
authority owned sports centres, all of which offer pay
and play opportunities for all their facilities. The map
above visually shows that the facilities are all located on
the south periphery of the borough and a lack of local
authority owned sports centres can be identified in the
north and central areas of the borough. The detailed
analysis of the specific facilities within the centres e.g.
sports halls, swimming halls, health and fitness facilities
have been included within those specific sections of this
report.
Map 23: Location of Brent’s sports centres
Location of Sports Centres
Vale Farm
Sports Centre
Bridge Park
Community
Leisure Centre
Willesden
Sports Centre
Legend
Quality
Bridge Park Community Leisure Centre was opened in
1985 as a conversion of a former bus garage; the layout
of the sports and fitness facilities is not typical in terms of
size and shape. Changing provision and the core space
occupied by sports facility provision is minimal in relation
to the site footprint. The facility has been relatively well
maintained internally and the mix of sporting and nonsporting
facilities proves popular with many sectors of
the local community. However, the layout of the building
results in a reduction in the quality of the sporting
experience and the potential for income generation and
the operational efficiency, in comparison to the design
and function of a ‘typical’ modern centre is limited.
Charteris Sports Centre is approximately 24 years old
and a conversion of a former factory. Recent investment
into the health and fitness studio has ensured that
this element of the centre is modern and good quality.
However, the site constraints, design and layout inhibit
the function of the centre considerably. Layout and
circulation is poor with narrow corridors and no natural
light internally. The reception area is insufficient for the
operation of the facility and changing facilities are too
small to serve their purpose. In addition, the activities
(and standards) accommodated within the sports hall are
adversely affected by the design and low roof trusses.
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Sports Centre Locations
1.6km Buffer of Sports Centres
Ward Boundaries
Charteris
Sports Centre
Moberly Sports
Centre
46

Vale Farm Sports Centre is showing signs of age and
despite ongoing refurbishment there are concerns about
its structure. Considerable work is required to improve
the functionality of the existing facility mix and modernise
the appearance of the centre’s interior and exterior.
Willesden sports centre is a newly built sports centre
which was opened in November 2006. The centre is
attracting on average approximately 1,350 visits per day,
providing evidence that if a quality facility is provided that
is accessible to the local community through charging
affordable rates with facility programming that recognises
the needs of all users, the local community will use the
facility.
Summary of report findings
The Continuum review shows that each centre has a
key role to play in providing publicly accessible sports
provision and play an important role in meeting the
sporting demands of residents, particularly amongst
those residents who are unable to access private facilities.
The Continuum review, however, highlighted the
poor physical state of three of Brent’s sports centres
(Vale Farm, Charteris and Bridge Park) and these
facilities become older they are likely to become more
expensive to operate and maintain resulting in poor
cost effectiveness, lower customer satisfaction, falling
participation levels and declining income levels.
Manor Health
Club
47
The review puts forward a number of options as to how
Brent should address its sports centre provision in the
future and recommendations are made as to the strategic
priorities they propose to enable the long term provision
of ‘fit for purpose’ indoor sports centres within Brent.
Swimming Pools
Swimming is the most popular activity as mentioned
earlier and recorded in the active people survey. Vast
arrays of activities take place in swimming pools from
learning to swim to aerobics and they are an essential
facility in Brent in relation to getting people active,
particularly as the Active People survey also showed
that swimming was the most popular activity amongst
females.
Quantity
There are 9 pools within the borough and of these only
two swimming pools are accessible to the public on a
pay and play basis. There are 3 pools in private health
clubs which are available to the public through private
membership and 4 belong to schools with no public
access. Both publicly accessible swimming pools have a
25 m pool and a separate learner pool.
Table 12: Swimming pools in Brent
Facility Name Postcode Ward Lanes Ownership Facility Age Access
Vale Farm
Sports Centre
Willesden
Sports Centre
Grove Park
School
Wykeham
Primary School
North West
London Jewish
Day School
Uxendon
Manor School
Livingwell
Health Club
Cannons
Health Club
HA0 3HG Sudbury 6 Local Authority 1979 Pay and Play
NW10 3QX Willesden
Green
NW9 0JY Queensbury
Ward
6 Local Authority 2006 Pay and Play
3 Community
Special School
NW10 0EX Welsh Harp 2 Community
School
NW6 7PP Brondesbury
Park
0 Voluntary
Aided School
HA3 0UX Kenton 0 Community
School
1977 Private
1972 Private
1986 Private
1975 Private
HA9 8DS Tokyngton 0 Commercial 1994 Registered
Membership Use
NW2 5JY Brondesbury
Park
3 Commercial 2002 Registered
Membership Use
NW2 6PG Mapesbury 0 Commercial 2006 Registered
Membership Use

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Capacity ratios
Compared to the individual boroughs in London, Brent
has the lowest amount of facilities per 1000 people The
current provision of 9 pools across the borough equates
to 1652m² of water space in total (private and public)
generating a capacity ratio of around 6.27 m² per 1000
population. To match the London average of 16.16m²,
the borough currently requires an additional 2927m². This
could rise to almost 3,656m2 by 2016 if no additional
provision is made and population growth occurs as
projected. When including only the publicly accessible
pools in the calculations, the capacity ratio falls to just
3.26m² per 1000 population.
Table 13: Capacity ratios – swimming pools
Facility
Type
All
Pools
Pay and
Play
Public
Access
Harrow
Harrow Leisure Centre
Golds Gym
(Harrow)
Current
Provision
Map
Brent
24:
walking
Walking
Travel
time to
Time
nearest
to Nearest
publicly
Publicity
Accessible Swimming Pool (Straight Line)
accessible swimming pool
Kenton
Queensbury
Fryent
Northwick
Barnhill
Welsh Harp
Park Preston
Vale farm Sports Centre
Dollis Hill The Manor
Holmes Place (Cricklewood)
Sudbury
Mapesbury
Dudden Hill
Camden
David Lloyd (Sudbury Hill)
Tokyngton
Esporta Health & Fitness (Swiss Cottage)
)
Boots Wellbeing
Centre (Greenford)
Wembley Central Willesden Green
Brondesbury Park
Stonebridge
Willesden Sports Centre
Alperton
Harlesden
Kilburn
Queen’s
Kensal Green Park
Gurnell Leisure Centre
Ealing
Copthall Leisure Centre
Laboratory Spa & Health Club
Holmes Place (Hendon)
Barnet
Hammersmith
& Fulham Kensington
& Chelsea
Quality
The age of the facilities have been included in table 12 as
this will have an affect on the capacity of the swimming
pool. With age, a swimming pool won’t be able to cope
with the same demands as a new pool. The average age
of the swimming pool facilities is 20 years old which
means that their capacity is reduced and they are less
attractive to use than new facilities.
Accessibility
Brent has very poor accessibility to swimming pools, 50%
of residents live more than 20 minutes walk from a pool.
This is particularly poor accessibility when compared to
neighbouring boroughs as shown in graph 5 on the next
page. Whilst there are a number of publicly accessible
pools located in neighbouring boroughs, these are
not accessible to residents living in the central band
running north to south (Kenton, Barnhill, Tokynton and
Stonebridge wards) who have to walk up to 50 minutes
to the nearest pool.
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population) - DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
TOTAL
(m²)
2001
(263507)
2001
(293900)
2016
(305400)
London
average
(2001)
Jubilee Sports Centre
Westminster
England
average
(2001)
Current
(2001)
(m²)
Legend
Pay & Play
Registered Membership
Railway
North Circular Road
Borough Boundary
Mid
(2011)
(m²)
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Future
(2016)
(m²)
9 1,652 6.27 5.62 5.41 16.16 18.44 -2927 -3456 -3656
2 860 3.26 2.92 2.81 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5 1,224 4.65 4.16 4.01 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Walking Time (mins)
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
48

49
The locations of the swimming pools are shown on map
25. Publicly accessible facilities are denoted with
orange catchment areas of 1.6 km, 20 minute walk
and the private facilities are denoted with a blue
catchment. The majority of residents live outside the
recommended catchment of any swimming pool
and only a small minority live within a 1.6km (20
minute walk) of one of the two pools accessible on
a pay and play basis. People living in areas within
the wards of Stonebridge, Alperton and Kenton
have to travel the greatest distance to any pool.
There are a number of publicly accessible
swimming pools located fairly close to the
Borough boundaries and the map below
shows one mile (1.6km) catchment circles for
publicly accessible facilities within Brent and
neighbouring Boroughs.
Map 26: Swimming pools within 1.6km
catchment including neighbouring boroughs facilities
%
Map 25: Catchment map – swimming pools
Location of
Swimming Centres
#
Legend
Pay & Play
Registered Membership Use
Private
1.6km Buffer of Pay & Play
1.6km Buffer of Registered Membership
1.6km Buffer of Private
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Key
Pool Site
with 1 mile
walking catchment

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Given the geographical location of the pools, just under 50% of Brent’s population do not live within a 1.6km
catchment of any pool site as can be seen from the graph 5 below.
Graph 5: % population within 20 mins walking time of pool sites
% Population within 20mins walking time of pool sites
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AREA TOTAL
Brent
Barnet
Camden
The map below identifies ‘travel time‘ by walking to the nearest swimming pool (all types of use) within and beyond
the borough. The areas shown by red triangle denotes those who have to travel the furthest (over 29 minutes) to get to
a swimming pool (Kenton, Barnhill, Stonebridge wards) and this doesn’t exclude the private pools.
Map 27: Travel time map – swimming pools
Ealing
Hammersmith & Fullham
Symbol
Travel Time
(minutes)
0.48 - 7.67
7.68 - 14.86
14.87 - 22.05
22.06 - 29.24
29.25 - 36.43
Harrow
Kensington & Chelsea
Westminster
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
2+ Pools
2 Pools
1 Pool
No Pools
Personal Share
Active Places Power personal share
tool analyses how much personal
share (expressed in m2) each individual
resident within the borough has of
the nearest swimming pool and this
has produced a score of 0.58m2 (ie:
each borough resident has 0.58m²
water space on average) compared
to the London average of 0.84m²
again indicating that the borough is
well below the average. This tools
includes facilities which are outside of
the borough as these might be closer
for some of Brent’s residents that live
close to the borders, however it only
includes facilities which are publicly
accessible. The map indicates the areas
of high personal share indicated in red
compared to areas of low personal
share indicated in blue (Stonebridge,
Welsh Harp and Mapesbury).
50

35000
30000
27500
25000
22500
20000
17500
15000
12500
10000
7500
5000
2500
51
Kenton ward appears to have a high personal share
despite poor accessibility, conversely Mapesbury ward has
a low person share despite relatively good accessibility to
two commercial pools.
Map 28: Personal share – swimming pools
Facilities Planning Model
The FPM provides information regarding how much
demand for swimming pools is being met, where
the highest levels of unmet demand are and how
much demand is being exported and imported from
neighbouring boroughs.
Swimming Pools Run 1 - Current population
and provision
Based upon current population and facility provision
Brent has the lowest number of pool sites and capacity
0
Brent
Barnet
Camden
Ealing
Hammersmith
& Fullham
across the study area (7 neighbouring boroughs). Brent
has a capacity of 9,800 visits which equates to the total
number of visits the swimming pools can have during
peak hours, per week. This capacity depends on the size
of the pools and how many hours of community use they
allow.
The FPM shows that demand outstrips supply
considerably with demand in Brent representing 16,600
visits compared to a capacity of 9,800 visits. This means
there is demand for swimming pools to accommodate
16,600 visits per week at peak times whereas currently
the swimming pools can only accommodate 9,800 visits
per week at peak times. This, therefore, means that a
considerable proportion of Brent’s satisfied demand for
swimming is exported to pools in neighbouring Ealing
and Harrow - both of which have higher capacity than
demand.
To meet the demand for swimming which is not met
by pools either in Brent or elsewhere would require the
equivalent of 2 additional 4-lane pools in the borough.
The FPM model has calculated this based on Brent having
demand of 16,650 visits per week and only a capacity of
9800 visits. Once the demand which is exported to other
boroughs is excluded 14% of demand remains unmet,
equal to 2,250 visits or equivalent of two 4 lane 25 metre
pools. However, in order for Brent to accommodate for
higher numbers of people within Brent and reduce export
demand, it is suggested that Brent requires two 6 lane
25 metre pools. Graph 6 illustrates the extent of unmet
demand in Brent compared to neighbouring boroughs.
Graph 6: levels of unmet and met demand, capacity and
utilised capacity for swimming pools.
Harrow
Kensington
& Chelsea
Westminster
Capacity
Utilised Cap
Demand
Satisfied
Demand
Unmet
Demand

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Swimming pools Run 2 – Projected population and
provision (2016)
The second scenario demonstrates the impact on satisfied
demand through an increase in pool provision by a
further 3 pools planned for development across the study
area (all outside of Brent). The findings show that within
the study area an increase in capacity of visits is greater
than the projected increase in demand. However, as
the increase in capacity is to occur outside the borough
boundary, unmet demand in Brent is predicted to be
virtually the same in 2016 as in 2007.
The projected population growth of 6.9% (19,000
people) will contribute to an increase in demand of
5.36% (and therefore unmet demand) for swimming.
The map below identifies those key areas of unmet
demand as Tokyngton, Stonebridge, Welsh Harp, Barnhill,
Mapesbury, and Alperton (dark red, dark pink and black
colour squares) with the wards in the north all showing
high levels of unmet demand (light green colours).
However the FPM report highlights that, “there are large
areas of the borough, especially and virtually the whole
of the middle and northern end of the borough which
are outside the catchment area of any swimming pool”.
Map 29: Unmet demand in 2016 - swimming pools
Unmet demand in 1km square
Expressed as SqM of water (rounded)
29 (1)
20 to 25 (2)
15 to 20 (4)
10 to 15 (7)
5 to 10 (30)
>0 to 5 (82)
%
#
The only significant differences from FPM run 1 to 2 is
that there is an increase in export demand due to the
proposed development in Ealing and a decrease in export
going to Harrow. This has an effect on the utilisation
of the swimming pools as the borough’s utilisation has
decreased from 67% in 2007 to 61% in 2016 as our
swimming pool stock ages further and the new facilities
planned in Ealing will then draw people away from the
boroughs facilities.
The FPM identified that an increase in pool water
of 287m² is needed across the study area, which is
equivalent to a 25m 4 lane swimming pool (215m²). It
was also noted that the location of the current swimming
pools mean that a large majority of the borough’s
residents don’t have access to a swimming pool and
the capacity could be increased if the pool space was
provided in other areas. The 2016 run indicated that
despite the additional water space in other boroughs,
Brent would still require the two additional 25 metre
4 lane pools as suggested in the 2007 run as demand
is met elsewhere. However, again, in order to reduce
export demand two 6 lane 25 metre swimming pools are
required as Brent residents get additional benefits when
using the boroughs own facilities.
Sports Halls
Sports halls are extremely important in the borough
as they provide a multipurpose space for a variety of
sports such as badminton, indoor football, netball,
basketball, gymnastics as well as providing a space that
can accommodate keep fit activities and martial arts.
They can also be used for events/functions and are a vital
community asset where localised activities can take place.
Quantity
Using the strategic planning tools, a sports hall is defined
as an indoor multi-sports hall where a range of sport and
recreational activities are carried out and where two or
more of the sport and recreational activities must be from
the Active Places list of ‘activities’, one or more of which
must be on at least a weekly basis. One hall per site must
be at least 10m x 18m, the size of one badminton court.
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
52

53
Using this classification Active Places Power shows that Brent has 28 sports halls providing a total of 108 badminton
courts. Sixteen (57 %) of these sports halls provide a hall space of at least 4 badminton courts which is large enough
to accommodate other indoor sports such as netball, basketball and volleyball. Four of these 4 court sports halls are
within sports centres in Brent and eleven are on school sites. Across the 28 locations, eight sports halls (29%) are
available on a pay and play basis and 71% for sports club/community association /private use only.
Map 30: Catchment map – sports halls
Location of Sports Halls
Legend
Pay & Play
Private Use
Sports Club Association
1.6km Buffer of Pay & Play
1.6km Buffer of Private Use
1.6km Buffer of Sports Club Association
Ward Boundaries

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Table 14: Sports Halls in Brent
Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Facility Age Access
Vale Farm
Sports Centre
Bridge Park
Community
Leisure Centre
Willesden
Sports Centre
Charteris
Sports Centre
Moberly Sports
& Education
Centre
(Temporarily
Closed)
Chalkhill
Primary School
Sports Hall
Oakington
Manor School
Preston Manor
High School
The Copland
Community
School
HA0 3HG Sudbury 5 Local Authority 1978 Pay and Play
NW10 0RG Stonebridge 5 Local Authority 1985 Pay and Play
NW10 3QX Willesden
Green
4 Local Authority 2006 Pay and Play
NW6 7ET Kilburn 3 Local Authority 1983 Pay and Play
W10 4AH Queens Park 6 Local Authority 1997 Pay and Play
HA9 9YP Barnhill 2 Community
School
HA9 6NF Tokyngton 4 Foundation
School
HA9 8NA Preston 4 Foundation
School
HA9 7DU Wembley
Central
5 Foundation
School
Jfs School HA3 9TE Barnhill 12 Voluntary
Aided School
Kingsbury
High School
(Lower Site)
Claremont
High School,
Currently
Closed
Capital City
Academy
Sports Facilities
Barham
Primary School
Sports Hall
Alperton
Community
School (Lower)
NW9 9AT Fryent 2 Foundation
School
HA3 0UH Kenton 4 Foundation
School
NW10 3ST Willesden
Green
HA0 4RQ Sudbury 2 Community
School
HA0 4PW Wembley
Central
2006 Sports club/
community
association
2004 Sports club/
community
association
2008 Sports club/
community
association
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Pay and play
2003 Sports club/
community
association
1950 Sports club/
community
association
2008 Sports club/
community
association
6 Academy 2003 Sports club/
community
association
6 Foundation
School
2003 Sports club/
community
association
1956 Sports club/
community
association
54

55
Facility Name Postcode Ward Courts Ownership Facility Age Access
University Of
Westminster
(Harrow Site)
Islamia Girls
High School
Kingsbury
High School
(Upper)
Chalkhill
Youth Centre
(Temporarily
Closed)
John Kelly
Boys’
Technology
College
Menorah High
School For
Girls
Convent Of
Jesus And
Mary Language
College
Wykeham
Primary School
Alperton
Community
School Stanley
Avenue
Cardinal
Hinsley High
School
Wembley High
Technology
College
Queens Park
Community
School
Al-Sadiq And
Al-Zahra
Schools
HA1 3TP Northwick
Park
4 Higher
Education
Institution
NW6 6PE Queens Park 1 Other
Independent
School
NW9 9JR Queensbury 4 Other
Independent
School
1970 Pay and Play
1984 Sports club/
community
association
1978 Sports club/
community
association
HA9 9DB Barnhill 1 Local Authority 2008 Pay and Play
NW2 7SN Dollis Hill 3 Foundation
School
NW2 7BZ Dollis Hill 3 Other
Independent
School
NW10 4EP Kensal Green 4 Voluntary
Aided School
NW10 0EX Welsh Harp 2 Community
School
HA0 4JE Alperton 2 Foundation
School
NW10 3RN Kensal Green 3 Voluntary
Aided School
HA0 3NT Northwick
Park
NW6 7BQ Brodesbury
Park
4 Community
School
5 Foundation
School
NW6 6PF Queens Park 2 Other
Independent
School
Total 108
1948 Private Use
1955 Private Use
1955 Private Use
1935 Private Use
1956 Private Use
1981 Private Use
1965 Private Use
1950 Private Use
1985 Private Use

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Capacity Ratios
Table 15 sets out the current supply of sports hall space
across the borough, firstly including all facilities and
secondly just publicly accessible facilities (i.e. those
facilities that are accessible to the public on a pay and
play basis and/or to clubs / groups)
Table 15: Capacity ratio’s – sports halls
Facility
Type
All Sports
Halls
Publicly
Accessible
Current
Provision
As can be seen, this distinction between accessibility has
a significant impact upon the borough-wide capacity
ratio. For all facilities the current capacity ratio is 68.23
m2 of sports hall per 1000 population. This is higher than
the current London average of 59.77 m2, but lower than
the England Average of 74.54m². This calculation shows
that the existing level of sports hall provision across Brent
is marginally in excess of the London average. However,
this presumes that the London average is adequate,
which may not be the case. Compared to the national
average Brent would require an extra 1,661 m2 of sport
hall space in 2001 and 4785 m2 of sport hall space by
2016 to meet the national average. When the private
use facilities are removed from the equation, the capacity
ratio drops significantly. However, it is not possible to
provide London or England average data for publicly
accessible facilities only and therefore there can be no
comparisons upon which to make an assessment of capacity.
Although the capacity ratio calculations above are
useful in assessing capacity against London and national
averages, it is vital that demand is assessed at a local level
and hence the calculations above should be used only
as an indication and The Facilities Planning Model results
which will be analysed shortly should take precedence.
It is possible to use the Capacity ratios tool to look at
square metreage provision per 1000 population at a
ward level. However, as most facilities are not located
within the centre of a ward, and generally people don’t
recognise ward boundaries, this information is of limited
use other than to highlight significant deficiencies or
areas of high provision. Analysing all sports hall facility
provision at a ward level shows that Mapesbury, Dudden
Hill and Harlesden wards have a capacity ratio of ‘0’ as
there are no sports halls and that the highest capacity
ratios (greatest square metreage per 1000 population) are
in the wards of Barnhill, Wembley Central and Willesden
Green.
CAPACITY RATIO ( Facility type per 1000 population) - DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
TOTAL
(m²)
2001
(263507)
2001
(293900)
2016
(305400)
London
average
(2001)
England
average
(2001)
Current
(2001)
(m²)
Mid
(2011)
(m²)
Quality
The majority of the Borough’s sports halls are over
30 years old and, as a consequence, they tend to
be less efficient to operate, have increased levels of
maintenance, and customer satisfaction is lower as public
expectations increase. This can result in fewer bookings
and therefore fewer people utilising the facilities the
borough has on offer.
Accessibility
Active Places power website enables a detailed map (map
31) to be drawn that shows actual walking travel time
to a Sport Hall (all sports halls), taking into consideration
facilities that may be located in neighbouring Boroughs.
The areas in red represent the parts of the Borough
where residents have the greatest distance to walk to
reach a sports centre. The areas in blue show the areas
where people have the shortest travel time to a sports
hall. It shows that the Dollis Hill, Mapesbury and Dudden
Hill wards are outside a 20 minute walk time of a publicly
accessible sports hall.
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Future
(2016)
(m²)
28 17,980 68.23 61.18 58.87 59.77 74.54 +2230 +414 -274
19 12,466 47.31 42.42 40.82 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
56

Map 31: Travel time map – sports halls
Map 32: Personal share – sports halls
57
Symbol
Personal Share of Sports Halls
Map 32 indicates areas within the borough which have
high personal share (red) and low personal share (green).
The map shows that residents who live in the South
of the Borough have less personal share of sports halls
compared to wards such as Queensbury and Fryent.
Compared to London, Brent residents have a personal
share of 0.76m² compared to London’s average of
0.89m² and the national average of 1.43 m² per resident.
Travel Time
(minutes walking)
0.42 - 4.632
4.633 - 8.844
8.845 - 13.056
13.057 - 17.268
17.269 - 21.48
Facilities Planning Model
Sports Halls Run 1- key findings -
current population and provision
The findings of the Facilities Planning
Model (FPM) run for 2007 identifies
that the capacity of Brent’s sports halls
is above the London average. In fact, it
is the second highest level of sports hall
capacity across the study area (the seven
neighbouring boroughs). However,
because of issues of accessibility, demand
outstrips capacity considerably across the study area as a
whole.
The FPM only includes sports halls with some public
accessibility and over 459 m2 in size (3 badminton
courts), as it is stated that sports halls need to
be this size to make a significant impact on
the community. However, smaller halls, as
identified earlier, do play a part in meeting
some local demand. This means that,
in total for this study, there were 48
badminton courts located on ten sites.
Currently within Brent, unmet demand stands at 28.6%
of the population - this equates to approximately 18
publicly accessible badminton courts. The South East of
the borough has the highest shortage at present and
17% of satisfied demand is imported from Westminster,
with 15% of demand imported from Kensington &
Chelsea. Some residents living in Welsh Harp and
Dollis Hill wards live outside a 1 mile catchment of a
publicly accessible sports hall. Graph 7 illustrates the
boroughs population that has access to sports halls, and
it shows that 14% of the borough do not have access
to any publicly accessible sport halls. Compared to the
neighbouring boroughs, this is only better than Barnet
and Hammersmith and Fulham’s score.

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Graph 7: % population within 20 mins walking time of sports halls
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AREA TOTAL
%
% Population within 20mins walking time of hall sites
Brent
Barnet
Camden
#
Ealing
Hammersmith
& Fullham
Unmet demand in 1km square
Expressed as badminton courts (rounded)
2 to 2 (6)
1 to 2 (25)
>0 to 1 (101)
Harrow
Kensington & Chelsea
Westminster
Map 33 provides a visual representation of the distribution of unmet demand –the light blue shades in the map
towards the south east of the borough show areas where there is high unmet demand and where there is a need for
at least 2 badminton courts and the green blocks show where there is need for 1-2 badminton courts to remove the
unmet demand. It should be noted that the FPM analysis is only inclusive of publicly accessible sports hall space.
Map 33: Unmet demand in 2007 – sports hall
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
2+ Halls
2 Halls
1 Hall
No Halls
58

59
Sports Halls Run 2 – projected population and provision in 2016
By 2016 it is anticipated that an additional four publicly accessible sports hall sites should be available across Brent,
either through new build or the reopening of facilities that are currently closed. These are at Copland School, Wembley
Academy, Chalk Hill Youth Centre and Moberly Education Centre.
Assuming the existing sports halls remain open, the projected increase in sports hall capacity by 2016 would be an
increase of 48.2% with more than 12,900 visits compared to only 8,700 visits in 2007. Over the same time frame, the
projected demand increase is an additional 3.7% due to the anticipated population increase.
There were an additional 4 sports halls added to the data for 2016 that were over 459 m2 in size, meaning that 66
badminton courts were included in total for run 2.
By 2016 there is a decrease in the percent of people that have no access to a sports hall within the borough by 5%
compared to 2007. However, there is still 14% of the borough that have no access within a 20 minute walk to a sports
hall. However, the FPM confirms that with the location of the proposed facilities and the increase in capacity, will do
very little to eradicate the unmet demand that the previous run identified. This may be down to the poor positioning
of the new facilities in areas already provided for in terms of sports hall space. This, along with an increase in demand,
means that an additional 2 to 3 badminton courts are needed borough-wide by 2016, making it 21 badminton courts
needed in total by 2016. However, it is unrealistic to expect all the unmet demand to be met by provision inside Brent.
Work will need to be done with neighbouring boroughs to increase their supply of community accessible sports halls.
It will also be unrealistic to provide all 21 badminton courts with new sports hall provision, meaning that it is vital
that any sports halls in areas of unmet demand are refurbished to create additional capacity and any sports halls that
don’t have community access are opened up to the general public. It is also vital that any new sports halls allow for
community access.
Health and Fitness
Sport England defines health and fitness suites as those facilities providing fitness stations for both cardiovascular and
strength training, more commonly known as gyms, and excludes spaces for aerobics and dance activities. The number
of health and fitness centres in London has been growing, with London having the largest majority of health and
fitness memberships within the country.
Quantity
There are 20 health and fitness venues providing a total of 1258 health and fitness stations across the borough. Of
these, six are available on a pay and play basis, nine are for registered membership use only and five are for private use
only and are located on school sites.

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Table 16: Health and fitness facilities in Brent
Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Facility Age Refurbished Access
Bridge Park
Community
Leisure Centre
Charteris
Sports Centre
Vale Farm
Sports Centre
Willesden
Sports Centre
Moberly Sports
and Education
Centre
University of
Westminster
(Harrow Site)
Fitness First
Health Club
(Alperton)
Fitness First
Health Club
(Kingsbury)
Fitness First
Health Club
(Kilburn)
Livingwell
Health Club
Cannons
Health Club
Manor Health
and Leisure
Club
(Cricklewood)
Genesis Gym
and Fitness
Studio
Energie Fitness
Club
Uniq Health
and Fitness
Kingsbury
High School
(uppersite)
NW10 0RG Stonebridge 40 Local Authority 1985 2006 Pay and Play
NW6 7ET Kilburn 30 Local Authority 1983 2006 Pay and Play
HA0 3HG Sudbury 63 Local Authority 1979 2007 Pay and Play
NW10
3QX
Willesden
Green
110 Local Authority 2006 Pay and Play
W10 4AH Queens Park 32 Local Authority 1997 2006 Pay and Play
HA1 3TP Northwick
Park
24 Higher
Education
Institution
1970 2006 Pay and Play
HA0 4LW Alperton 126 Commercial 2000 2004 Registered
Membership
Use
NW9 9HN Queensbury 110 Commercial 1998 2007 Registered
Membership
Use
NW6 6RG Queens Park 126 Commercial 1998 2007 Registered
Membership
Use
HA9 8DS Tokyngton 21 Commercial 1994 2007 Registered
Membership
Use
NW2 5JY Brondesbury 70 Commercial 2002 2005 Registered
Membership
Use
NW2 6PG Mapesbury 270 Commercial 2001 2004 Registered
Membership
Use
HA0 1EF Alperton 60 Commercial 1996 2004 Registered
Membership
Use
HA9 6DE Tokyngton 77 Commercial 2004 Registered
Membership
Use
HA1 3TZ Northwick
Park
NW9 9JR Queensbury 8 Foundation
School
50 Commercial 2006 Registered
Membership
Use
1991 Private
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
60

61
Site Name Postcode Ward Stations Ownership Facility Age Refurbished Access
Convent of
Jesus and Mary
Language
College
NW10 4EP Kensal
Green
Capacity Ratios
Based on 1258 fitness stations, a calculation of all Brent’s health and fitness capacity ratio shows there are 4.77 fitness
stations per 1000 population which compares to a London average of 6.19 fitness stations per 1000 population. There
are only 299 (23%) fitness stations available on a pay and play basis. To bring the current level of provision in health
and fitness facilities in line with the London average, Brent would require an additional 455 fitness stations across the
borough now, and by 2016 the shortfall could increase to 727, as shown in the table below. The capacity ratios need to
be used with caution as they work on the basis that the London averages are adequate when they may not be.
Table 17: Capacity ratio’s – health and fitness
6 Voluntary
Aided School
JFS School HA3 9TE Barnhill 6 Voluntary
Aided School
Capital City
Academy
Sports Facilities
Oakington
Manor School
NW10 3ST Willesden
Green
HA9 6NF Tokyngton 11 Foundation
School
Total 1258
Facility
Type
All Health
and Fitness
Facilities
Pay and
Play
Publicly
Accessible
Current
Provision
1985 Private
2003 Private
18 Academy 2003 Private
2004 Private
CAPACITY RATIO (Facility type per 1000 population) - DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
TOTAL
(m²)
2001
(263507)
2001
(293900)
2016
(305400)
London
average
(2001)
England
average
(2001)
Current
(2001)
(m²)
20 1258 4.77 4.28 4.12 6.19 5.42 -455
stations
Mid
(2011)
(m²)
-652
stations
6 299 1.13 1.02 0.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Future
(2016)
(m²)
-727
stations
15 1209 4.59 4.11 3.96 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Quality
The health and fitness sites in Brent are relatively new or
recently refurbished as customers expect to see modern
equipment in gyms. The average age of the facilities is
5 years old and this will mean that capacity will not be
affected as much in these facilities. The 4 local authority
sports centres health and fitness facilities have all had
extensions and / or new equipment installed in the last
two years.
Accessibility
Map 34 indicates that the publicly accessible health
and fitness centres are located close to the Southern
Borough boundary and in Northwick Park and Sudbury
wards. There are areas within Welsh Harp and Dollis Hill
wards where residents are outside the recommended
1.6km walking catchment area of any health and fitness
provision. Registered membership and private facilities
are the only provision in the Queensbury, Barnhill,
Alperton and Mapesbury wards and no facilities
are actually located in Welsh Harp, Dollis
Hill, Dudden Hill, Kenton, Preston Wembley
Central and Fryent wards.
Map 34: Catchment map –
health and fitness facilities
Location of Health and
Fitness Facilities
Legend
Ward Boundaries
Pay & Play
Registered Membership Use
Private
Pay & Play Buffer 1.6km
Reg Member Use Buffer 1.6km
Private Buffer 1.6km
#
Map 35 shows how long it would take people to walk
to the nearest health and fitness facility (all providers).
This shows that residents living in parts of Preston, Welsh
Harp Barnhill, Dollis Hill and Dudden Hill wards have to
walk between 23 and 29 minutes to the nearest health
and fitness facility. This map doesn’t take into account
which facilities are private, registered membership and
which ones are publicly accessible. The majority of fitness
members as stated by the Fitness Industry Association
(FIA) report into fitness memberships (2007) are willing to
travel up to 2 miles for a local authority health and fitness
facility, however for private health and fitness facilities
people are willing to travel up to 3 miles.
Map 35: Travel time map – health and fitness
Symbol
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Travel Time
(minutes walking)
0.42 - 6.196
6.197 - 11.972
11.973 - 17.748
17.749 - 23.524
23.525 - 29.3
62

63
Gym Memberships
The table below sets out the number of health and
fitness memberships in the borough; this excludes the
school sites which don’t allow public access. Only 6 of
the 15 sites allow the general public to use the facilities
on a pay and play basis. 4 of the sites are owned by Brent
and one facility is owned by the City of Westminster,
giving in total 5 local authority sites. This is important as
the National Audit of Fitness consumers identified that
nationally the lower income groups are underrepresented
as users of health and fitness facilities. However, there is a
large majority of people on lower incomes who use local
authority owned health and fitness facilities rather than
the commercial / registered membership facilities.
Table 18: Gym memberships
In total there are 22,105 health and fitness members
within the borough and the Fitness Industry Association
(FIA) has stated that nationally, 12% of the population
currently have a health and fitness membership. This
is set to continue to grow and has increased 3% over
the last year alone. Currently in Brent only 8% of the
population have memberships at these facilities. This
means that to get to the national average, there would
need to be another 11,399 memberships within the
borough. Brent currently has 1,209 stations available
to the public, the estimated demand converts to an
additional 652 fitness stations. This is calculated by using
England penetration rates and it is stated by the FIA that
London penetration rates are on average 33% higher
than the rest of England, meaning that there would be
even more scope to increase health and fitness facilities.
The increase of the borough’s population will only
Facility Current registered members Type of public accessibility
Bridge Park Community
Leisure Centre
270 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Cannons Health Club 3300 Registered Membership
Charteris Sports Centre 300 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Energie Fitness Club 350 Registered Membership
Fitness First Health Club (Alperton) 3000 Registered Membership
Fitness First Health Club (Kilburn) 2000 Registered Membership
Fitness First Health Club (Kingsbury) 2000 Registered Membership
Genesis Gym and Fitness Studio 750 Registered Membership
Livingwell Health Club 700 Registered Membership
Manor Health and Leisure Club 1000 Registered Membership
Moberly Sports and Education Centre 1500 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Uniq Health and Fitness 900 Registered Membership
University of Westminster 650 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Vale Farm Sports Centre 1050 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Willesden Sports Centre 4335 Pay and Play and Registered
Membership
Total Members 22105 6 pay and play, 9 Registered
Membership
Average Number of members 1474

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
increase the demand for more health and fitness facilities
and by 2016 an additional 14,543 memberships are
expected with population growth. This would require an
additional 827 fitness stations. These calculations should
take precedence over the capacity ratios as they assess
local capacity against local demand, therefore giving
more accurate future requirements.
Indoor Athletics
Quantity
There is currently 1 indoor athletics facility in the
borough, located in the south of the borough at the local
authority owned Willesden Sports Centre. The facility
offers an 80 metre indoor 8 lane straight running track
with indoor facilities for some field events.
The indoor track provides flexible space allowing it to be
used for a variety of different activities such as fitness
classes, mini tennis, judo and children’s activities.
Accessibility
The indoor athletics facility at Willesden is illustrated
on map 36 with a 1.6km catchment. Although most of
the borough is not within a 20 minute walk time of this
facility, users of specialist facilities are willing to travel
further and there are two other indoor tracks in North
and West London at Brunel University (Uxbridge) and Lea
Valley (Enfield)
Map 36: Catchment map – indoor athletics
Indoor Athletics
Legend
Supply and Demand
The one indoor facility within the Borough would cover
demand according to the UK Athletics target of one
indoor training centre per 500,000 people living within
30 minutes drive.
Quality
Willesden sports centre where the indoor track is
located, was opened in November 2006 and is therefore
in excellent condition. In addition to the indoor track,
the facility also provides an outdoor six lane, synthetic,
floodlit, athletics track with full track and field event
facilities, changing accommodation.
Indoor Bowls
Quantity
The borough hosts one private indoor bowls centre
providing 6 rinks for bowls. The Bowls club is located in
Preston ward North West of the borough and is open to
people who join the club. It is not available on a pay and
play basis.
The capacity ratio table shows that Brent is slightly above
the London average in terms of capacity ratio, with 0.023
rinks in Brent per 1000 population compared to a London
average of 0.02 rinks per 1000, meaning there is 0.7 of a
rink more in Brent compared to the London average.
Pay & Play Indoor Athletics
1.6km Buffer of Pay & Play Athletics
Ward Boundaries
Brent Borough Boundary
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
64

65
Table 19: Capacity Ratios – indoor bowls
Facility
Type
Indoor
bowls
CURRENT
PROVISION
Quality
The bowling facility at the Century Bowling club was first
opened in 1928 and was resurfaced in 1990. This will
affect the quality and capacity of the facility.
Accessibility
Map 37 indicates the location of the facility and its 1.6km
catchment area. This shows that 75% of the borough is
outside of this area.
Map 37: Catchment map – indoor bowls
Indoor Bowls
Facilities TOTAL
(rinks)
CAPACITY RATIO
( Facility type per 1000 population)
2001
(263507)
2011
(293900)
2016
(305400)
London
average
(2001)
England
average
(2001)
The map below indicates the walk time to the nearest
indoor bowls centre. The red areas around Harlesden,
Dudden Hill and Dollis Hill show the greatest travel time
by walking (at least 60 minutes) to the nearest indoor
bowls centre. This map includes provision amongst
neighbouring boroughs and therefore travel time in the
South East of the Borough reduces due to their proximity
to a facility in Westminster.
Map 38: Travel time map – indoor bowls
- DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
Current
(2001)
1 6 0.023 0.020 0.020 0.02 0.04 +0.7
rinks
Legend
Brent Borough Boundary
Private Indoor Bowls within a 1.6km Walk Time
Indoor Bowls - Registered Membership Use
Ward Boundaries
Symbol
Mid
(2011)
+0.0
rinks
Future
(2016)
-0.0
rinks
Travel Time
(minutes walking)
2.1 - 16.39
16.4 - 30.68
30.69 - 44.97
44.98 - 59.26
59.27 - 73.55

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Supply and Demand
Active Places Power local supply and demand balance
tool identifies that 46.11% of the demand for indoor
bowls within Brent is met through this one facility.
If Brent were to meet the demand in the borough
another 6 rink indoor bowls facilities would have to
be accommodated, but this tool does not take into
account facilities provided in neighbouring boroughs in
Westminster and north in Harrow. However, demand for
bowls is falling and a further rink would therefore not be
required by 2016.
Indoor Squash Courts
Squash was most popular in the 1970’s. However,
demand has decreased in recent years and many squash
courts have been developed to provide alternative
facilities such as children’s play areas or gyms.
Quantity
The borough hosts 7 squash courts in two locations.
Two courts are located at Wembley and Sudbury tennis,
squash and social club and 5 courts at Vale Farm sports
centre.
Accessibility
Both squash sites are located in Sudbury ward within
close proximity to one another. This means that the
majority of the borough’s population is not within a 20
minute walk time to any squash facilities.
Map 39: Catchment map – squash
Location of
Squash Courts
1
2
Legend
Pay & Play Squash Courts
Registered Membership Use
Squash Courts
Squash Courts
Ward Boundaries
Supply and Demand
Vale Farm Sports Centre receives over 8,000 squash visits
per year which relates to just over 20 visits per day which,
spread over 5 courts, equals only 2 matches per court
per day suggesting the demand isn’t there to cover the
current provision.
However, squash courts can provide multi use spaces for
a variety of activities and still provide for squash when
required.
Quality
The facilities at Vale Farm have recently be refurbished
which will increase capacity further and may attract more
usage.
Indoor Tennis
Quantity
The borough has no specialist indoor tennis courts
although sports halls are used for this, particularly for
junior tennis provision.
The capacity ratio for indoor courts in London produces
a score of 0.03 tennis courts per 1000 of the population
meaning that Brent would need an 8 court indoor
tennis centre to meet the average in London. However,
this doesn’t take into consideration the fact that all
neighbouring Boroughs have indoor tennis facilities
which may cover Brent’s demand for indoor tennis courts.
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision
66

Table 20: Capacity Ratios – indoor tennis
Facility
Type
Indoor
tennis
CURRENT
PROVISION
Accessibility
There are indoor tennis facilities in the surrounding
boroughs and it has been recorded before that people
are willing to travel further for the more specialised sports
facilities. The map below shows the walking time travel
distance to indoor tennis courts with people living in
the areas shown by red triangles (parts of Queensbury,
Fryent, Barnhill, Preston and Sudbury wards) having on
average over 80 minutes walking time to such a facility.
Map 40: Travel time map – indoor tennis
Symbol
67
Facilities TOTAL
(courts)
CAPACITY RATIO
( Facility type per 1000 population)
2001
(263507)
2011
(293900)
2016
(305400)
London
average
(2001)
England
average
(2001)
- DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
Current
(2001)
0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 -7.9
courts
Travel Time
(minutes walking)
12.85 - 29.254
29.255 - 45.658
45.659 - 62.062
62.063 - 78.466
78.467 - 94.87
Mid
(2011)
-8.8
courts
Future
(2016)
-9.2
courts
Supply and Demand
The Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) strongly advocates
the development of indoor tennis courts. Within ‘The
Need for Covered Courts’ (1998) the LTA emphasises
that opportunity to play tennis all year round and for
longer periods every day increases the quantity and
diversity of regular participation within the sport. The
LTA recommendations for indoor tennis courts is to have
a court per 200 regular players and taking the active
people survey that 2% of the population play tennis, that
would equate to 5,488 people playing tennis in Brent. If
there was a court per 200 players this would mean that
in 2007 Brent would require 27 courts. In 2016, with the
increase in the population, Brent would require 29 courts.
Whilst these are recommendations from the LTA it shows
that Brent is extremely deficient in terms of indoor courts
and it would be useful to work with the LTA and local
clubs further to assess how to make improvements to
encourage uptake of the sport.

Chapter Six Indoor Sports Facility Provision
Chapter Six - Indoor Sports Facility Provision 68

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
A desktop study of outdoor sports provision was initiated
by the Council and assessed through a physical audit
of Brent’s outdoor facilities. The audit looked at the
quantity, quality and access to sports pitches, courts, ball
courts / Multi use games areas (MUGA’s), changing and
ancillary facilities, and school and college sports facilities
in Brent.
All Pitches
Quantity
The audit inspected 89 pitches; 46 pitches on 32 local
authority sites (including Queens Park), 30 pitches on
22 education sites, and 13 pitches on 11 private and
1 housing association sites. The audit only included
pitches that were marked out and appeared to be in
use, rather than spaces which were informal and could
accommodate pitch sports. The numbers and types of
these pitches are shown in the table below and, as the
audit was undertaken during winter months, it is possible
that some summer pitches have been excluded.
Table 21: Number of pitches by each pitch type
The majority of playing pitches in the borough are
maintained by the Local Authority, most of which are
located within Brent Parks and open spaces. The most
common type of pitch is football. Of the 29 education
sites visited (nursery, primary, secondary, tertiary and
other), only 22 had some outdoor sports provision.
Very few education sites have their own sports pitches
with only 8 of Brent’s 14 Secondary Schools and 5 of
the 60 Primary Schools having sports pitches. There are
currently 2 decommissioned football pitches at Copland
Community School and Chalkhill Youth Centre.
Brent has a relatively low number of ‘privately owned’
pitches. This number may have been greater in the past
as a number of sites were developed for alternative uses
during the mid 1990s.
Quality
The quality of pitches was also assessed in accordance
with a modified Sport England Visual Quality Assessment
(VQA). The results are shown in table 22. This shows
that the vast majority of pitches in the borough are of
average, below average, or poor quality.
The local authority pitches were assessed to be in the
worst condition, with 89% of pitches being average or
below quality and none rated as excellent. The quality
of education pitches is generally better although 21%
are still rated as below average, and two fifths rated as
average. None are rated as excellent. The private pitches
overall ranked higher in terms of quality. However, the
quality of private pitches varies, with almost a third below
Pitch Type No. of LA Pitches No. of Education Pitches No. of Private Pitches
Football 36 26 + 2 decommissioned 8
Cricket 6 3 4
Gaelic Football 3 0 0
Rugby 2 1 1
Total 46 30 13
average. Only one pitch is rated as excellent being the
cricket pitch at South Hampstead Cricket Club.
Table 22: Pitch Quality Ratings
Rating % LA Pitches % Education Pitches % Private Pitches
An excellent pitch 0.0 0.0 7.7
A good pitch 10.9 36.8 38.5
An average pitch 26.1 42.1 23.1
A below average pitch 54.3 21.1 30.8
A poor pitch 8.7 0.0 0.0
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities 70

71
From the site survey the symptoms of poor conditions in local authority sites included water-logged pitches indicating
poor drainage, poor condition of goalmouths, uneven surfacing, high proportion of weeds, damage caused by vehicles
and horses being driven/ridden across the pitches, collapsed drains, golf divots and large stones and bricks observed at
surface level.
Floodlighting
There are currently no floodlit grass pitches in the borough, other than ones on private pitch sites. There are
decommissioned floodlights at Alperton Sports Ground and the former London Wasps rugby training ground at Vale
Farm, Sudbury Avenue.
All Pitches Changing Facilities
Only some of Brent’s playing pitches have changing room facilities. The changing rooms that are available were also
assessed in accordance with the Sport England VQA. The results are shown in the table below.
Table 23: Changing Facilities Quality Ratings
Rating No. of LA sites No. of Education sites No. of Private sites
Excellent 3 2 3
Good 3 3 1
Average 3 1 4
Poor 1 0 1
Very Poor 1 0 1
Total 11 7 10
A total of 11 local authority changing facilities were assessed, equating to one third of Brent sports pitches having
changing rooms available for public use. Just over half are in good or excellent condition with Gladstone Park,
Willesden Sports Ground and GEC Sports Ground rated the highest. Two were rated as poor; Silver Jubilee Park and
Tokyngton Recreation Ground.
Seven of the 22 education facilities have changing facilities, most of which are in good condition. Two (Claremont
High School and JFS) were rated as being in excellent condition,
More than three quarters of the private playing pitches have changing room facilities available, which are mainly of
average condition. Three of the facilities, at the Pavilion Stonebridge, Goals at Alperton Sports Ground and Wembley
Cricket Club were rated as excellent.

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Football Pitches
Across the borough there are a total of 18 senior football pitches, 47 junior pitches and 5 mini soccer pitches. These
are broken down by ownership in the following table. The definition of junior and senior pitches is loosely defined
and for the purposes of this study, pitches of 100m or less in length have been assessed as being junior pitches, even if
senior teams primarily use them.
Table 24: Total Number of Football Pitches in Brent
Ownership Senior Junior Mini Soccer
Local Authority 12 22 2
Education 5 19 2
Private 1 6 1
Total 18 47 5
The total area of football pitches in the Borough is 66.7ha, in which the table below shows this by football pitch type
and ownership. The number of pitches is based on the pitches in active use and not pitches that were not marked out
e.g. pitches at Gladstone Park and King Edward VII Recreation Ground, Willesden which are being improved and not
currently marked out, so were not assessed and are not included in this audit.
Table 25: Area of Football Pitches in Brent
Ownership Senior Junior Mini Soccer
Local Authority 16.8 18.7 0.6
Education 7 16.2 0.6
Private 1.4 5.1 0.3
Total 25.2 40 1.5
Much of the borough is within a 20 minute walking distance (1.6km) to a football pitch. In the South East of the
borough there are only football pitches on school sites.
Map 41: Catchment map
Football Pitches
– Football pitches
61
35
69
72
39
5
73
25 62
3
48
19
28
12
46
15
24
32
29b
51
29a
66
41
63
18
9
53
20
30
6
21
27
34
50
Legend
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community Association
Registered Membership Use
Private
1.6km Buffer Pay & Play
Borough Boundary
1.6km Buffer Sports Club / Community Association
1.6km Buffer Registered membership Use
1.6km Buffer Private
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
72

73
Supply and Demand
There are currently 70 football pitches in the borough,
half of these are either on school sites or in private
ownership. 70 pitches is equivalent to 0.25 football
pitches or 0.3ha per 1,000 population. However, there is
no London-wide capacity ratio to compare this figure to.
5.7% of Brent residents (16yrs+) played outdoor football
in the 4 weeks preceding the Active People Survey,
which equates to roughly 12,400 people (GLA 2006 yr
population projection). Brent football participation rates
are similar to both London and national levels suggesting
there is significant local demand for football pitches
within the borough.
Despite comparable participation rates, Football
Association (FA) records of teams playing in Brent indicate
far fewer teams playing in the borough than elsewhere in
London. This may be explained in part by a small number
of teams that are not affiliated to the FA and therefore
do appear on their records. However, the poor quality of
pitches and lack of associated changing facilities in the
borough may mean that demand for pitches is displaced
to neighbouring boroughs as teams choose to play
elsewhere in London.
In order to calculate local demand for football which
allows for the latent demand, London-wide conversion
rates are used to calculate demand for pitches in Brent.
Conversion rates are expressed as the proportion of the
population playing football calculated by multiplying
the number of teams by the average number of players
on different types of team. Brent has characteristics of
both inner and outer London boroughs and has football
participation rates comparable to London (5.7% and 6%
respectively) such that a London-wide conversion rate is
appropriate.
Table 26: Demand for football pitches
Estimated
number of Brent
teams
Number of
pitches needed
during peak
demand period
Demand for pitches is calculated based on the following
assumptions:
• Half of matches will be played at home and half away
• Temporal demand for adult pitches is 50% of matches
played Saturday afternoon, the remainder on Sunday
morning with a very small number of matches played in
the afternoon. All Youth matches and mini soccer are
played on Sunday morning (Brent Club Survey 2003).
Using this method and calculations, Brent is deficient in
all forms of football pitches, the greatest deficit being
for adult full size and mini soccer pitches. [Please note
however that the 7 football pitches currently being
improved at Gladstone Park (2 senior and 3 mini)
and King Edwards VII Recreation Ground (2 senior) in
Willesden were not included in this calculation as at the
time they were not in use.]
An existing deficit of 25 senior football pitches as well
as a deficit in junior pitches represents a significant
challenge for the council particularly as opportunities for
increasing the number of pitches are restricted by the
highly urbanised character of the borough. There are
however, a number of opportunities to increase capacity
in Brent parks where pitches are not currently laid out
including King Edward VII Park, Wembley, GEC Pellat
Road, Roundwood Park, and Roe Green Park. There is
also additional capacity at the decommissioned pitch at
Chalkhill Youth Centre.
There are also opportunities to increase the intensity
at which existing pitches are used, through drainage
improvements and floodlighting. Drainage improvements
are needed at John Billam, Northwick Park and Silver
Jubilee Recreation Ground. Reinstalling the floodlighting
at Vale Farm and Alperton will greatly increase capacity.
Brent supply of
pitches
Adult football 172 43 18 -25
Youth football 104 52 47 -5
Mini Soccer 53 26 5 -21
Surplus/Deficit
of pitches during
peak demand

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Rugby Pitches
The audit surveyed 4 rugby pitches in Brent covering an area of 4.8ha (including safety margins). These include two
local authority sites, 1 education site (junior pitch) and 1 privately owned site. The provision of pitches is focused along
the north, north west periphery and south east of the borough.
Table 27 – Rugby pitches in Brent
Local Authority Education Private
62. Tenterden Sports Ground
(51% score)
65. Tiverton Playing Fields
(50% score)
(Number = map and audit reference number)
Map 42: Catchment map – Rugby pitches
Location of Rugby
Pitches
29b. Kingsbury High upper site
(Junior pitch 64% score)
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community Association
Registered Membership Use
1.6km Buffer of Rugby Pitches
1.6km Buffer of Rugby Pitches
1.6km Buffer of Rugby Pitches
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundaries
Supply and Demand
The two local authority owned rugby pitches are in average condition. There are no changing facilities at Tiverton
Green.
A survey of sports clubs in 2003 found 2 rugby union clubs operating in the borough. They have a total of 7 teams
between them. A new rugby pitch is to be provided as part of the improvements to Gladstone Park, together with
a floodlit training area. These new facilities will become the new home for one of Brent’s rugby clubs who will leave
Tiverton playing fields. Tiverton playing fields will continue to provide valuable pitches for nearby schools in an area
with limited open space provision. This provision is therefore expected to meet demand for rugby pitch facilities unless
levels of participation increase significantly.
Legend
61. Sudbury Hill Playing Fields
(73% score)
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
74

75
Cricket Pitches
Quantity
There are a total of 17 cricket pitches on 11 sites. Eight are local authority pitches, 4 education pitches (all of which are
artificial pitches) and 5 are private pitches. There is also a cricket table and outfield at Gibbons Recreation Ground but
this is not suitable for club play. At the time of the audit 4 pitches were not laid out and were not assessed (Vale Farm,
Preston Park and Maybank Open Space).
Table 28: Cricket pitches in Brent
Local Authority Education Private
39. Northwick Park
(3 pitches 74%, 67%, & 71%)
60. Sudbury Court Sports Club
(46%) (2 additional pitches not
marked out at time of audit)
27. King Edward VII Park, Willesden
(77%)
47. Preston Park (not marked out at
time of audit)
Map 43: Catchment map – cricket pitches
Cricket Locations
24. JFS (81%)
Artificial pitch
29b. Kingsbury High upper site
(2 pitches 72% & 61%)
Artificial pitches
29a. Kingsbury High lower site
Artificial pitch (moderate)
Legend
54. South Hampstead Cricket Club
(91%)
61. Sudbury Hill Playing Fields (2
pitches 75% & 80%)
71. Wembley Cricket Club (77%)
35. Maybank Open Space (not
marked out at the time of the audit)
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community Association
Registered Membership Use
1.6km Buffer Pay & Play
1.6 Buffer Sports Club / Community Association
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
1.6km Buffer Registered Membership Use

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Quality
The overall quality score for cricket pitches in the borough
is 73%, however the local authority pitches average at
67%. Improvements are currently taking place on pitches
at Sudbury Court (Vale Farm) and King Edwards VII in
Willesden. New cricket pitches will be available at John
Billam and Gladstone Recreation Ground.
Supply and Demand
Cricket is a locally popular sport with participation
levels well above the national average. 1.5% of Brent
population play cricket which is equivalent to 4,188
people playing cricket in any 4 week period (this figure
does not include junior players). Cricket is one of 8
priority sports in the borough.
There are currently 10 cricket clubs affiliated to the MCB
playing within Brent. A review of pitch bookings in 2005
of Brent Parks Service reveals there are an additional 4
clubs using facilities within Brent that are not affiliated.
A survey of cricket clubs conducted in 2003 for the Brent
Playing Pitch Strategy found a total of 31 adult teams
and 9 junior teams. The average number of players in
an adult team is 16 players and 23 players in a junior
team. Based on this survey of clubs, the conversion rate
(percentage of population playing cricket based on club
membership numbers) is just 0.2% which is very low
and suggests there may be potentially a large number of
Brent cricket players playing outside the borough or that
people are playing cricket in clubs that did not respond to
the survey.
Estimating current demand for cricket pitches based
on the 2003 club survey and allowing for a 10%
population growth gives a total peak demand for 10
pitches. This demand increases to 11 pitches by 2016
with further population growth. However, this is a
minimum figure as latent demand is not accounted for
and local demand is expected to be considerably higher.
Whilst there appears to sufficient overall supply of
cricket pitches to meet minimum demand estimates,
community use of the 4 pitches on school grounds will
be limited and is therefore given a 0.5 weighting. This
gives a total community use provision of 10 pitches. By
2016 there will be shortage of one public cricket pitch
to meet minimum demand estimates. There is also the
need to provide outdoor cricket nets to help with the
development of the sport for training purposes. There
is no cricket provision in central and south east areas
of the borough and the north of the borough only has
cricket pitches on school sites.
Gaelic Football Pitches
Quantity
At the time of the audit there were 3 Gaelic football
pitches with an area of 4.8ha including safety margins.
All three are within the ownership of Brent Council; 2 in
Northwick Park and 1 at Church Lane Recreation Ground.
During the summer months, the football pitches at John
Billam Sports Ground are laid out for gaelic football.
Three pitches were not laid out at the time of audit (Silver
Jubilee, GEC Pellat Road and Vale Farm). An additional
pitch at Gladstone Park was under construction at the
time of the audit.
Table 29: Gaelic football pitches and pitch quality
Pitch Quality score
39. Northwick Park 2 pitches (84% & 70%)
11. Church Lane
Recreation Ground
25. John Billam Sports
Ground
Map 44: Catchment map – Gaelic football pitches
Location of Gaelic
Football Pitches
39
69
25
19
55%
2 pitches in summer
(not assessed)
19. GEC Pellat Road Not laid out at time of audit
53. Silver Jubilee Not laid out at time of audit
69. Vale Farm Not laid out at time of audit
21. Gladstone Park Pitch under construction
11
53
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
21
Legend
Pay & Play
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
1.6km Buffer of Pay & Play
76

77
Quality
The Church Lane Recreation Ground was scored as
average (55%) and the 2 Northwick Park pitches were
scored as good with scores of 84% and 70%
Supply and Demand
Gaelic football teams play at 7 of the 8 pitches available.
The new pitch at Gladstone Park will allow for club
expansion. Neasden Gaels operating at Silver Jubilee
recreation ground wish to expand to cater for gaelic
soccer and camogie.
Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs)
Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs) are all weather surfaces for
pitch sports, in particular hockey and football. STPs do
not include non turf surfaces such as concrete, tarmac
or Redgra. Sport England minimum dimensions for STPs
are 75m x 45m. In addition to full sized STPs, Brent has
a number of smaller synthetic pitches for 7 and 5-a-side
football.
Site Name Ownership Changing Facilities
Total Score %
6. Capital City
Academy
Quantity and Quality
There are seven sites hosting STP’s in Brent. All except
Wembley High Technical College have changing room
facilities available. All are in good condition, with the
exception of Vale Farm although plans are in place to
replace the fencing which will significantly improve it’s
quality score. A commercial five a side soccer centre at
Goals in Alperton provides 14 five a side courts and 1
seven a side court, all in excellent condition with high
quality changing facilities.
Table 30: Synthetic Turf Pitch Quality Scores
Total Score % Details
Education No access 91.9 61m x 100m sand based
c2003. Football and hockey
24. JFS Education 95% 89.2 64m x 103m sand based,
c2003. Football and Hockey
36. Moberly Sports
and Education Centre
73. Wembley High
Technical College
63. The Pavilion,
Stonebridge
Recreation Ground
68. Vale Farm London Borough of
Brent
22. Goals Soccer
Centre
City of Westminster 88% 91.9 18m x 36m 3rd generation,
built 2006, floodlit. Football
only
Education None 97 61m x 83m 3rd generation,
Dec 2007.
Housing Association 95% 94.6 45m x 90m and 7 a side 30m
x 15m 3rd generation, Jan
2007. Football only.
54% 62.2 66m x 102m sand based,
floodlit. Football and hockey
Commercial 100% 94.6 14 x 5 a side courts and 1 x 7
a side court. Football only.

Four STP’s are available on a pay and play basis and three
other sites are available through sports clubs / community
organisation bookings. Two of the STPs are 3rd
Generation and not suitable for competitive hockey and
two further small sized STPs are suitable for football only.
As the map below illustrates, the South of the borough is
within 20 minutes walking distance of a STP. Central and
Eastern areas of the borough have no STP provision.
Map 45 – Catchment maps – Synthetic Turf Pitches
Location of Synthetic
Turf Pitches
Supply and Demand
The FA guidelines recommend 1 STP per 50,000
population. Brent has 5 STPs which meet the Sport
England criteria, 4 of which are in good condition, so this
is slightly below the recommended FA provision. Three of
the STPs are on school sites, 1 of which does not provide
any community use.
To assess the level of supply of STPs in the borough, Brent
capacity ratio can be compared to the London average.
The 5 STPs that meet Sport England’s criteria are included
in the analysis.
Table 31: Capacity ratio’s – STP’s
Facility
Type
Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
68
73
22
24
CURRENT
PROVISION
63
Facilities TOTAL
(pitches)
Legend
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community
Association
Private
1.6km Buffer Pay & Play
1.6km Buffer Sports Club /
Community Association
1.6km Buffer Private
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
6
36
!
CAPACITY RATIO
( Facility type per 1000 population)
2001
(263507)
2011
(293900)
Brent’s capacity ratio in 2001 was slightly below the
London average, whilst this was a marginal deficit this
will increase to the equivalent deficiency of 1 pitch by
2016 if no further STPs are provided with population
growth.
Map 46: Travel time map – STP’s
The map above illustrates that
people across the centre of the
borough from South West to
North East are more that 20
minutes from a synthetic turf
pitch. The wards particularly
affected are Alperton, Wembley
Symbol
Range
(minutes)
1.62 - 8.286
8.287 - 14.952
14.953 - 21.618
21.619 - 28.284
28.285 - 34.95
Central, Tokyngton, Barn Hill, Welsh Harp, and parts of
Queensbury and Kenton. However the Active Places data
doesn’t recognise the Goals synthetic turf pitches located
in Alperton and Moberly Sports Centre in Kensal Rise as
2016
(305400)
London
average
- DEFICIENCY / + SURPLUS
(In comparison with
London average)
Current
(2001)
STP’s 5 5 0.019 0.017 0.016 0.02 -0.3
pitches
Mid
(2011)
-0.9
pitches
Future
(2016)
-1.2
pitches
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
78

79
their pitches are not full sized and are not included in the
analysis.
Claremont High School in Kenton (North of the
borough) has been granted planning permission
(September 2008) for a full sized synthetic turf
pitch with floodlights. This would be open to sports
clubs or community associations after school and
weekends. However, the Jewish Free School have
a synthetic turf pitch close by, meaning that this
facility will do very little in meeting any of the unmet
demand.
Tennis Courts
Quality and Quantity
Brent has a total of 74 tennis courts, 35 of which
are located on 7 local authority sites (including
Queen’s Park which is maintained by the Corporation
of London), 17 on 5 education sites, and 22 on 5
privately owned club sites. The courts which are on
the privately owned sites are in the best condition
compared to local authority and education courts,
with an average quality score of 85%.
Table 32: Tennis court and quality scores in Brent
(Local Authority Owned Courts)
Map 47: Catchment maps – tennis courts
45
74
70
47
76
46
24
29a
28 21
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community association
Registered membership Use
Private
1.6km Buffer Pay & Play
1.6km Buffer Sports Club / Community Association
1.6km Buffer Registered membership Use
1.6km Buffer Private
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
Site Name Ref. No No. of Courts Average Quality
Score %
Legend
10. Chelmsford Square 2 2 67.5
21. Gladstone Park 21 10 82.8
28. King Edward VII Park 28 3 92.7
47. Preston Park 47 6 91.7
49. Queens Park (Corporation of London) 49 6 72.4
76. Woodcock Park 76 6 49.5
45. Parkside Tennis Club 45 2 70.4
Total 35 75
14
13
6
16
10
54
49

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Of the local authority tennis courts, these vary in quality.
Of highest quality are King Edward VII Park, which
were refurbished in 2006 and Preston Park. The courts
at Woodcock Park are in poor condition. There are a
number of local authority tennis courts which are no
longer usable; these are the courts at Alperton and Eton
Grove and 4 additional courts at Chelmsford Square.
These courts suffer from uneven or broken surfacing,
dilapidated or absent fencing and nets and are in need of
refurbishing. Some of the courts at Gladstone Park are
also in need of resurfacing. Tiverton Rd had tennis courts
available in the past, however these are now dilapidated
and not included in this assessment.
Only four secondary schools in the borough have tennis
courts. This is low considering these accounts for just
over a quarter of Brent secondary schools. However the
quality of existing education tennis courts is generally
good with an average quality rating of 70.1%. The
courts at Convent of Jesus & Mary Language College can
be used for either tennis or netball.
Table 33: Tennis courts on Education sites
The private tennis courts in the Borough are generally in
good condition with the average being 84.5%. It was
noted, however, that the only clay courts in the borough
being at Elmwood LTC require investment. Wembley &
Sudbury LTC has recently been refurbished and two of
the courts are floodlit.
Table 34: Private tennis courts
A central band running north-south through the borough
and extending to Alperton, is more than 20 minutes
walking distance from tennis provision. The catchment
area of private courts (which includes school facilities)
does not greatly increase the area of the borough already
covered by public facilities. The only public provision in
the North of the borough is the courts at Woodcock Park
which are in poor condition.
Supply and Demand
There are a total of 74 tennis courts in the borough,
which is the equivalent of 0.27 courts per 1,000
population. There are no benchmark capacity ratios to
compare this figure with.
Brent tennis participation rate is 2.1%, which is
equivalent to 5,863 people playing tennis in a 4 week
period. Tennis participation rates in Brent are lower than
the London rate of 3% and participation in neighbouring
boroughs is 3% or above.
Site Name Ref. No No. of Courts Average Quality
Score %
6. Capital City Academy 6 4 81.3
24. Jewish Free School 24 3 63
29a. Kingsbury High (Lower Site) 29a 3 68.8
46. Preston Manor High School 46 3 77.8
14. Convent of Jesus & Mary
Language College
14 4 62
Total 17 70.1
Site Name Ref. No No. of Courts Average Quality
Score %
13. Coles Green Tennis Lawn Tennis Club 13 3 86.5
16. Elmwood Lawn Tennis Club 16 6 73.6
55. South Hampstead Tennis Club 55 5 93.8
74. Wembley Lawn Tennis Club 74 3 71.9
70. Wembley and Sudbury Lawn Tennis Club 70 5 96.9
Total 22 84.5
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
80

81
The capacity of existing provision can be estimated based
on the following assumptions:
• Each court will have capacity for 116 match slots per
4 week period (12 hours Sat/Sun and 4hrs weekdays
=44hrs/2640 mins per week multiplied by 4 weeks =
10560 mins, then divided by average game length of
91 mins).
It is estimated that there is demand for 10552 match
slots per 4 week period on the following assumptions:
• Half of matches will be singles and half will be doubles
• The mean number of occasions tennis is played in a 4
week period is 4.8
There are 74 courts in the borough (including 17 courts
in schools). The overall capacity of all tennis courts in
the borough (regardless of current condition) is 8,584
match slots. According to these results, it would appear
that Brent’s existing demand is being met outside of the
borough, with a need for 91 courts and supply of only
74 courts within the borough. There are 13 dilapidated
courts that can be refurbished, leaving a need for 4 new
courts.
Local Authority Sites Total %
Score
51. Roe Green
(double court)
52. Roundwood Park
(double court)
59. St Raphaels Community
Centre
Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGA) /
Ball Courts
Multi-use game areas (MUGA) is the generic name
for purpose built outdoor facilities for multiple sports.
MUGA are primarily used by young people, usually for
basketball, football, tennis, hockey or netball. Some
MUGA are purpose built for 5 aside football or hockey
others are multi-use ball courts. The courts listed below
are predominantly ‘ball courts’ whilst other MUGA which
offer a surface predominantly for use by football / hockey,
have been classified under Synthetic Turf Pitches (STPs).
Quantity
There are 21 MUGAs located at 19 sites across the
borough (Roundwood Park and Roe Green have double
MUGAs) and plans for four further facilities on three
sites by spring 2009. The MUGAs within three of the
primary schools have community use agreements in place
as a requirement of the New Opportunities Fund monies
that funded the MUGAs, but several of the other school
MUGAs are not publicly accessible outside of school
hours.
Table 35: Multi-use Games Areas in Brent
Education Sites Total % Score Alternate
provider site
87.5 57. St Mary’s C of
E Primary School
84.4 38. Newfield
Primary School
67.6 58. St Mary R.C
Primary School
100 63. The Pavilion 94.6
100 50. Queens
Park School
100
8. Chalkhill Sports Ground 65.6 24. JFS 86.5
64. The Shrine 62.2 73. Wembley
High Technical
College
84
42. One Tree Hill 29.7 6. Capital City
Academy
77.8
23. Grove Park Open Oct 08 26. John Kelly
Girls School
60
60. Sudbury Court, Open April 08 33. Longstone 35.1
Vale Farm
Avenue
62. Tenterden
Anticipated 9. Chalkhill Youth 18.9
Recreation Ground construction
Spring 09
Centre
21. Gladstone Park Anticipated 78. Sudbury Open 04/08
(double court)
construction
Spring 09
Primary School private use only
Total % Score
Anticipated
Spring 09

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Map 48: Catchment map – MUGAs / ball courts in Brent
with an 800m catchment area
69
78 60
73
Legend
42
62
Pay & Play
Sports Club / Community Association
Private
Ward Boundaries
Borough Boundary
800m catchment of Pay & Play
800m catchment of Private
Quality
The majority of MUGAs visited were relatively
new and of good quality as listed in table 35.
Three new MUGAs have been built in the
last year at three different primary
schools, and new MUGAs were also
built at The Pavilion in Stonebridge and
at Sudbury Court, Vale Farm. Four
additional MUGA’s are planned in
the next year at Gladstone Park (2)
Tenterden Recreation Ground (1)
and Queens Park School (1).
Supply and Demand
Brent has 18 good quality
MUGAs, four planned within the
next six months and 3 in poor or
derelict condition. In comparison,
neighbouring Ealing has 19 MUGAs.
There is no recognised standard for
MUGA provision.
As MUGAs are primarily used by
young people they are particularly
suitable for Brent’s young
demographic profile. Wards in
the borough with the highest
proportion of under 16 year olds are
24
800m catchment of Sports Club / Community Association
51
59
23
8
63
9
64
57
38
26
52
33
6
21
7 19
5
50
Brent Population
Density Map
for 5-19 year olds
23
22
Northwick
Park
17
Sudbury
20
21
Kenton
29
14
18
Preston
16
15
Wembley
Central
Stonebridge, Harlesden and Dollis Hill. Willesden Green
has the highest number of young adults (16-24). New
MUGA provision should be focused in areas of greatest
potential demand.
Map 49 below shows existing locations of MUGA’s and
areas of greatest population density of young people
and locations of some of Brent’s larger parks, recreation
grounds and open spaces. The current distribution of
MUGAs appears to correspond fairly well with areas of
highest child population density, although there is no
provision in Preston, Fryent and Welsh Harp wards. Brent
parks which serve areas of high youth population density
and currently have no MUGA provision include; Eton
Grove, Gibbons Recreation Ground, South Kilburn
Open Space, Neasden Recreation Ground, Sherran’s
Farm, Church Lane Recreation Ground, Alperton
sports ground, Preston park, Woodcock park
and King Edward VII Park, Wembley. There
58 is also a need to refurbish existing MUGAs
that are in areas of high demand (One Tree
Hill and Chalkhill Youth Centre). The map
illustrates the current population distribution.
Up to 2016 the housing growth areas will also require
MUGA provision.
Map 49: Brent population density map for 5 to 19 year olds
Queensbury
Barnhill
3
8
Tokyngton
10
2
24
28
26
Fryent
6
4
1
Welsh
Harp
Alperton 27
11
Stonebridge
9
Dollis Hill
0
12
Dudden Hill Mapesbury
Legend
Willesden Green
Brondesbury
Harlesden 25
Park
Kensal Green Queen’s Park
MUGA’s by Acess
Pay & Play
Private
Sports Club / Community Association
Parks & Open Spaces
Ward Boundary
Borough Boundary
Population Density
Very Low
Low
t.
Medium
High
Very High
Kilburn
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
13
82

83
Netball Courts
Quantity
There are no local authority netball courts in the borough.
Of the schools surveyed, only Capital City Academy and
JFS had netball courts in use, however it appears that
not all schools were included in the audit and additional
schools have netball court facilities which are available
for public use e.g. Kingsbury High schools. The
MUGA at the Pavilion in Stonebridge is used by
a local netball team.
Funding has been granted to the Council
from the London Marathon Charitable
Trust to develop a disused tarmac area in
Gladstone Park into an area with 5 publicly
accessible netball courts. It is anticipated
that these courts will be available from
summer 2009.
Supply & Demand
The Active People survey records netball
participation rate to be 0.1% in Brent. This is below
the London (0.3%) and England (0.4%) level. Netball
has been identified as one of the 8 priority sports in the
borough and, as a sport that primarily women participate
in, there should be a greater availability of provision.
There are no agreed levels of provision and therefore
recommendations regarding levels of provision have been
calculated to recognise school provision and to provide
facilities that will encourage more females to participate
in sport (e.g providing netball facilities at the Local
Authority sports centres).
Athletic Tracks and Facilities
Quantity and Quality
There is one outdoor floodlit athletics track with high
jump, long jump, and pole vault pits plus a hammer and
shot put cage at Willesden Sports Centre. This facility is
in very good condition, having been resurfaced as part
of the sports centre redevelopment and reopened in
November 2006. There is a disused cinder track at the
rear of Vale farm sports centre.
Supply and demand
The six lane athletics track at Willesden Sports Centre
equates to a capacity ratio of 0.021 lanes per 1,000
population in 2007. This is below the London average
of 0.04. To match the London average, the borough
would require a further 5 lanes now and 6.2 lanes by
2016. Active People Survey showed Brent’s participation
in athletics track and field activity to be 0.3%, which
is higher than both the London level (0.2%) and the
national level (0.1%).
Map 50: Travel time map – athletics tracks
Symbol
Range
(minutes)
3.18 - 14.45
14.46 - 25.72
25.73 - 36.99
37 - 48.26
48.27 - 59.53
The map above shows that people living in Alperton,
Wembley Central, Tokyngton, Barnhill and parts of
Kenton are over a 50 minute walk away from any
outdoor athletic track facilities.
However usage at the Willesden Sports Centre track is
low with additional capacity available for more users and
there are several athletics tracks close to the borough
boundaries at Perivale (Ealing) Barnet Copthall (Barnet),
Harrow School (Harrow) and Linford Christie Stadium
(Hammersmith & Fulham). Therefore there does not
appear to be demand for the additional lanes suggested
by London-wide provision rates.

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Bowling Greens
Quantity
There are 9 outdoor bowling greens in the borough, 7
maintained by the local authority and 2 privately owned.
The provision of bowling greens is concentrated in the
North and South East of the borough.
Map 51: catchment map – Bowling greens
Location of
Bowling Greens
Quality
47
76
3
7
28
Table 36: Borough Bowling Greens and Pavilions, sites
and quality scores
17
52
21
Of the local authority sites, all but Alperton Sports
Ground and Gladstone Park have a club associated with
them and are in relatively good condition. Alperton
Sports Ground is no longer in use and, although
Gladstone Park was refurbished in 2006 with Heritage
Lottery Funding, it was only brought up to a casual
standard of play, in the event that demand for bowls
may increase in future and subsequently brought up to
club standard. Roundwood Park green is the most well
used and in the best condition. However, the pavilion
associated with it is in one of the worst conditions.
Of the private bowling greens, both are known to have
been in financial difficulty. Century Bowling Club has
redeveloped its site replacing two lawn greens with
one artificial green which has enabled them to make
improvements to their pavilion and indoor bowling green.
4
Legend
Pay & Play Bowling Greens
Registered Membership Use
1.6km Buffer Bowling Greens
Ward Boundaries
1.6km Buffer Bowling Greens
Site Name & Site Reference Number Total Score % Pavilion Score %
3. Alperton Sports Ground 29.6 Derelict
4. Brondesbury Bowling Club (Private) 66.7 54
7. Century Bowling Club (Private) under construction under construction
17. Eton Grove Open Space 64.8 52
21. Gladstone Park 33.3 No pavilion
28. King Edward VII Park 72.2 86
47. Preston Park 66.7 78
52. Roundwood Park 83.3 54
76. Woodcock Park 81.5 64
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities
84

85
Supply and Demand
There are 9 bowling greens in the borough and the most
popular of the 7 Council-owned greens is in Roundwood
Park. Participation in bowling is only 0.2%. Clubs in the
borough report difficulties in attracting new members
and the declining participation rate in the borough
reflects a London-wide trend. This together with the
fact that Brent has a large ‘young’ population indicates
that there does not appear to be demand for increased
bowling green provision, but improvements could be
made to the pavilions at the existing sites to meet the
needs of current demand.
Watersports
The borough has one venue for watersports and this is
located at the Welsh Harp, with 170 hectares of open
space and water. It is located east of the borough on the
Kingsbury / Hendon borders, partially in Brent and Barnet.
The reservoir is owned by British Waterways. It is two
kilometres long and in its south westerly point is the base
for a number of water sport clubs providing activities in
sailing, kayaking, canoeing, bell boating and windsurfing.
Welsh Harp is designated as a Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) which means that any developments on
the site are subject to conditions that prevent damaging
impacts on the SSSI. There are no recognised levels
of provision but the success of Great Britain’s ‘sailing’
team at the 2008 Olympics should be used as a tool to
encourage greater participation.
It is important to make sure the community has access
to the watersports facilities at Welsh Harp as they are
alternatives to mainstream sports, however they tend
to be more costly than other sports. Therefore it is vital
to work with the clubs on the Welsh Harp and develop
programmes to encourage the local community to use
the facilities at an affordable rate.
Cycling
Cycling is not just a form of transport but an increasingly
popular sport due to the British successful cycling team at
the Beijing Olympics 2008. But it is also a leisure pursuit
and fitness activity, which engages people of all ages to
take up the activity.
Quantity and Quality
There are already a number of cycle routes and networks
around Brent as part of the London Cycle Network. Plans
are being developed to include more local cycle routes to
enhance the cycle routes further.
There is also a disused BMX track in Chalkhill which was
probably built in the 1980’s when BMX became a very
popular sport. The track is very overgrown and hasn’t
been used for years but the foundations of the track are
still there. It is also in a good area away from traffic and
could provide the perfect environment for multi discipline
cycling facilities as British Cycling state they would like to
facilitate in order to develop the sport further.
The active people survey recorded that 9 percent of the
borough participate in a continuous cycle for 30 minutes
at least once a month. However, travel surveys conducted
at the local sports centres indicated that the main reason
people don’t cycle is because they don’t feel safe cycling
on the roads. British Cycling have also noted that traffic
in London is a major barrier to parents allowing their
children to cycle and so traffic free areas are a priority
to allow engagement with the under 16’s. There is one
cycling club in the borough but they don’t have suitable
outdoor facilities away from the traffic to train which
means that it limits the club in what they can offer young
people who want to take up the sport.
The government has pledged investment into cycling but
more needs to be done to encourage people to cycle
more, especially investment into cycle routes and facilities
in areas away from the roads where everyone especially
children can feel safe to cycle.

Chapter six Outdoor Sports Facilities
Chapter Six - Outdoor Sports Facilities 86

87
This chapter summarises the key issues highlighted in previous
chapters, identifying key facts regarding the profile of the Borough,
existing sports facility provision and the strategic context of sports
facility provision. It identifies those issues that need to be considered
when planning locations for future provision that will have the
maximum impact upon increasing levels of participation. It also
highlights the facility type and location where there are greatest levels
of unmet demand.
The chapter goes on to identify priorities for future provision and sets
local standards which the Borough should be striving to achieve in
order to ensure that levels of demand are met.
Key facts – Borough profile:
• Brent’s population was 279,200 in 2007 and this is predicted to rise
to over 305,000 by 2016
• Concentration of new homes are to be provided in five regeneration
areas; Wembley, Alperton, Burnt Oak / Collindale, Church End and
South Kilburn
• 55% of Brent’s population are from Black and Ethnic Minority
Groups with over 130 different languages spoken in Brent schools
• Brent has a ‘young population’ with 43% of residents under the
age of 30.
• Brent has become more deprived and is 53rd most deprived
borough in England with the fourth lowest average income levels in
London
• Nearly 40% of Brent residents do not have access to a car
• Almost 20% of Brent’s population are estimated to be obese
• There are high and increasing prevalence of diabetes, HIV and TB
Key facts – Sports participation:
• Over half (56%) of Brent’s adult population is not taking part in any
form of physical activity, the third lowest in London. (Active People
1, 2006)
• Female non participation is particularly high at 61%.
• Residents satisfaction levels with local sports provision is low
• Only 18% of Brent’s adult population take part in the
recommended 3 occasions of 30 minutes physical activity per week
• Indoor swimming and ‘going to the gym’ are the activities most
Brent residents participate in but this is significantly below the
London average

Chapter Seven Priorities for Future Provision
• Football and jogging are the activities most participated
in outdoors but these are below the London average
• Cricket, dance studio based activities and basketball are
more popular in Brent than across London as a whole
• 87% of Brent pupils are receiving two hours quality PE
• There are a low number of sports clubs and low sports
club membership in Brent.
Key facts – strategic context
• Wembley is a host venue of the London 2012 Olympics
and paralympics
• Sport England is aiming for 1 million people doing more
sport by 2012.
• Sport and leisure can play a role in achieving many of
the Council’s corporate objectives and priorities
• The Borough’s health and well being strategy recognises
the need to increase the number of people participating
in physical activity
• Local regeneration masterplans recognise the need for
community infrastructure provisions
Implications of key demographic and participation
issues on future sports provision:
• Sports facilities will need to cater for Brent’s diverse
multi cultural population to ensure all communities are
able to participate.
• Provision of public facilities in areas of greatest health
inequalities and social deprivation is more likely to result
in these communities participating in physical activity
than if they had to travel a long way to a facility
• A need for affordable ‘pay and play’ activities in areas
of greatest social need
• Facilities need to be located in areas with very good
public transport access and safe walking and cycling
routes
• Facilities targeting particular age groups should be
focused in areas of greatest densities
• Sports facility provision needs to be backed up by
significant sports development resources to target and
enable Brent’s residents to lead more active lifestyles
• Better quality facilities will increase satisfaction levels
and participation rates
Key facts - Sports Facilities
There has been very little investment in the Borough’s
sporting infrastructure over the last twenty years. This
now means that in general Brent has aging, poor quality
sports facilities, low levels of satisfaction, low levels of
provision in some facility types and some of the lowest
levels of participation in London.
• Over 50% of Brent residents live more than 20 minutes
walk from any swimming pool
• The current location of Brent’s sports centres meets
local demand but four of the five sports centres in Brent
are old and increasingly expensive to maintain
• Sports hall provision is almost adequate but the
majority of facilities are old and located within schools
• There is significant under provision of health and fitness
facilities, both public and private
• The quality of existing local authority pitches and courts
needs to be improved
• There is a need for changing accommodation on more
pitch locations
• MUGA provision should be focused in areas with higher
densities of young people
• Community access to sports facilities on school sites
should be increased
• Provision of specialist indoor sports provision should
consider provision within neighbouring Boroughs and
local participation rates
Future Facility Needs
As a result of the extensive research, facility audits and
consultation, this strategy has reviewed and analysed
future sports provision needs to satisfy current and future
demand.
The following facility needs have been identified:
Sports Centres ‘Wet and Dry’
Using Sport England’s many strategic planning tools the
audits highlight the importance of Brent’s existing sports
centres, at or very near to their current locations, in
providing much needed publicly accessible facilities and
meeting the sporting demands of Brent residents. The
lack of swimming pool provision in Brent is a major issue
88
Chapter Seven - Priorities for Future Provision

89
and there is a need for two swimming pools (minimum 6
lane each) in the Borough. The provision of at least one
pool that serves the North of the Borough should be the
Borough’s key priority. A second pool should be provided
at an easily accessible location in the centre of the
borough, preferably near Stonebridge / Barnhill to meet
projected demand by 2016.
FIRST PRIORITY
• Provision of a third public swimming pool to serve
the north of the Borough together with health and
fitness and preferably sports hall facilities, which will
help reduce revenue subsidy levels. The key issue with
this option is identifying sources of capital funding to
enable this priority to be realised.
Other priorities
• New build wet and dry sports hub facility to replace the
existing Vale Farm sports centre. This will protect the
ongoing provision of sports facilities, in particular the
publicly accessible water space until the new facility is
available for use. A new build will enable more efficient
and effective design principles to be introduced making
the facility more cost effective and able to meet the
demands of the local populations. Additional facilities
should be considered for inclusion within this facility
which may also be more attractive to a private sector
operator such as indoor tennis, indoor cricket and/or
a climbing wall. The key issue with this option is
identifying sources of capital funding to enable this
priority to be realised.
• The provision of a fourth swimming pool in the
Borough to meet unmet demand preferably with
substantial health and fitness related facilities, to meet
the needs of a growing population.
• The provision of additional ‘pay and play’ health and
fitness facilities in the Kilburn area, potentially through
the refurbishment of Charteris sports centre, subject to
the provision elsewhere in the area of a sports hall with
‘pay and play’ community access.
• The redevelopment of the site at Bridge Park
Community Leisure Centre with the provision of a new
build sports centre. This is a more opportunistic option
and will be lead by the Council’s Planning service who
will ensure that any redevelopment of the BPCLC and/
or Unisys site will include the re-provision of a new
leisure centre at or near its existing location. The timing
of this redevelopment will be determined by enabling
opportunities that arise.
Other Indoor Facilities
Sports Halls
Sports hall provision is adequate compared to the London
average but due to the lack of community accessible
sports halls and the age of the buildings there is a need
to re-provide or upgrade facilities as local demand
amplifies the need for an additional 18-21 badminton
courts in the Borough. Any new halls should ideally
be 4 courts and above and have community access
arrangements enforced. New provision that provides
public access in Dollis Hill / Mapesbury wards and pay
and play access in Queensbury / Fryent / Kenton / Barnhill
wards will help satisfy demand.
Health and Fitness
There are significant shortfalls in the provision of health
and fitness facilities, approximately 827 stations using
the FIA’s gym membership calculations. There is an
opportunity for this provision to be made by the private
sector in some parts of Brent and via the local authority in
areas where affordable pay and play access is essential to
enable use by the local community.
Increasing capacity at any redeveloped or new built
facility should include substantial health and fitness
provision as a priority. (Such provision is also likely to
cross-subsidise other facilities such as a swimming pool.)
Education sites that have health and fitness facilities
should be encouraged to make such facilities available
to club / community groups similar to their bookings for
sports halls.
Specialist indoor facilities
There is no additional demand for indoor bowls, indoor
athletics or squash courts but the existing level of
provision should be retained.
Statistically there is a demand for indoor tennis facilities
and consideration should also be given to the provision of
other indoor specialist facilities (e.g. indoor cricket centre)
where there are high levels of local demand which is not
satisfied by neighbouring authorities.
Outdoor Facilities
Football pitches
Demand calculations show an under provision of 25
senior football pitches, 5 youth pitches and 21 mini
pitches. Opportunities for additional pitches in Brent
Parks should be investigated.

Chapter Seven Priorities for Future Provision
The quality of existing pitches needs to be improved
and additional changing accommodation should be
provided. Existing changing rooms should be at least of
good standard and capable of use by both genders and
different age groups at the same time. Floodlit pitches
should be reinstalled.
Where there is no open space to provide new pitches e.g.
South East of the Borough, schools should be encouraged
to offer use of their pitches to the community
Cricket pitches
Current levels of cricket pitch provision must be retained
and pitch quality improved. By 2016 there will be
requirement for one additional pitch to meet minimum
calculations of demand. If levels of participation increase
or access to pitches on school sites reduces additional
provision will be required. In cases where grass pitch
improvements are being made for football or rugby,
opportunities to incorporate a cricket wicket should be
taken where the orientation of pitches allows.
Rugby pitches
With the provision of a new pitch at Gladstone Park
together with a floodlit training area there appears to
be sufficient provision. However if levels of participation
increase an additional pitch may be required.
Gaelic pitches
It is believed that there is local demand for expanded
facilities particularly at Silver Jubilee Park to accommodate
more Gaelic sports.
Tennis courts
There is demand for 4 additional tennis courts in the
Borough plus a further four by 2016. Local authority
courts in poor condition should be refurbished and/ or
dilapidated courts brought back into use. There should be
greater community access to the courts on school sites.
Netball courts
A recommended provision standard has been calculated
to recognise school provision and to provide facilities that
will encourage more females to participate in sport by
promoting new public provision within redevelopment of
sports halls.
MUGA / ball courts
Any further MUGA provision should be located in areas
with greatest young person population densities. Two
facilities in areas of high demand should be refurbished
and 11 new facilities are needed in areas with high youth
population and no current provision.
Synthetic Turf pitches
STP provision falls slightly below FA recommended levels
and the London average. Residents in some parts of
the Borough have to travel more than 20 minutes to an
STP and any new provision should focus on those areas
currently at greatest distance from existing facilities.
Other specialist outdoor facilities
There is no additional demand for outdoor bowling
greens or athletics tracks.
Watersports
The clubs on Welsh Harp should be supported to improve
their facilities to provide greater access and hence greater
participation opportunities to Brent residents to take part
in a range of watersport activities.
Cycling
Additional safer cycling areas e.g. cycle routes in Parks
and well signposted routes that link different areas
within Brent are needed. The feasibility of reinstating and
improving the rundown BMX track in Chalkhill should be
investigated.
Governing Bodies of Sport
A number of National Governing Bodies (NGB’s) of
Sport have developed facility strategies to identify their
sports specific requirements that will enable their sport
to develop to it’s full potential. Many of these strategies
are aspirational rather than deliverable. As NGB’s become
more responsible for delivering the Government’s agenda
to increase participation in sport and develop their ‘whole
sport’ plans it is likely that more NGB’s will produce their
own facility strategies.
Brent welcomes working with all national governing
bodies of sport, particularly in sports which can bring
resources and help achieve our strategic objectives. When
considering providing specialist facilities, provision within
neighbouring Borough’s must be assessed as demand
may be satisfied through local provision outside the
Borough.
Supply vs Demand
Table 37 below summarises the supply versus demand
analysis of indoor and outdoor sports provision.
(Population will have an effect in terms of increasing
demand, however, due to new provision being planned in
the Brent and neighbouring boroughs demand may not
change as exemplified by the swimming pools figure).
Chapter Seven - Priorities for Future Provision 90

91
Table 37: Supply versus Demand analysis
Facility Type Brent Current
Provision (2008)
Swimming Pools 2 six lane
pay and play
swimming pools,
2 registered
member pools
Sports Halls 80 badminton
courts publicly
accessible
Health and
Fitness
1209 fitness
stations publicly
accessible
Demand (2008) Surplus +/
Deficit -
1700m² -2 six lane
swimming pools
Demand (2016) Additional
provision
required by
2016 based
on current
provision
1700m² 2 six lane
swimming pools
98 -18 101 21
1861 -652 2036 827
Indoor athletics One track One track 0 One track 0
Indoor bowls One indoor green One indoor green 0 One indoor green 0
Squash Courts Seven 4 +3 4 0
Indoor cricket 0 Not identified n/a Not identified Potentially
based on local
popularity and
surrounding
provision
Synthetic Turf
Pitches
5 5.6 -0.6 pitches 6.1 1.1pitches
Athletics Tracks 6 lanes 6 lanes 0 6 lanes 0
Football Pitches 70 pitches
(18 adult, 47
youth, 5 mini)
120 pitches
(43 adult, 52
youth, 26 mini)
-25 adult
-5 youth
-21 mini
147 pitches (40
adult, 77 youth,
30 mini)
22 adult
30 youth
25 mini
Gaelic Football 8 pitches 7 pitches +1 9 pitches 1
(One additional
pitch will be
provided at
Gladstone Park
from 2009)
Rugby Pitches 2 pitches –
publicly accessible
1 pitch 1 pitch 1 pitch 1
Cricket Pitches 10 10 0 11 1
Tennis Courts 74 courts 10,552 match
slots which
equates to 91
courts
-17 courts 11,426 match
slots which
equates to 99
courts
4 additional
courts now and
a further 4 by
2016.
Plus 13 courts
can be brought
back into use /
upgraded.

Chapter Seven Priorities for Future Provision
Facility Type Brent Current
Provision (2008)
Demand (2008) Surplus +/
Deficit -
Demand (2016) Additional
provision
required by
2016 based
on current
provision
MUGAs 21 35 -14 38 17
Bowling Greens 9 9 0 9 Current provision
is expected to
meet existing
demand and into
the future
Netball courts 10 (within
schools, figure
may be higher)
Sports Facility Priorities
The table below identifies the type of sports facility
provision that is required to meet demand, proposing
where possible locations in which facilities should be
situated or areas which should be served to address
greatest levels of need. A priority has been given to the
provision of such facilities based upon this strategy being
Table 38: Facility priorities
39 -29 44 34
a plan through until 2021. Thus the following timescales
relate to the priority levels such that:
High priority = 1 to 3 years
Medium priority = 4 to 6 years
Low priority = 7 to 13 years
Sports Facility Location Reason / Comments Priority
H / M / L
Additional six lane
Community Swimming
Pool (25m)
(preferably with health
and fitness and sports hall
provision)
Redevelopment of
Vale Farm as a wet and
dry sports hub facility,
potentially with additional
specialist facilities.
Additional six lane
Community Swimming
Pool (25m preferably with
health and fitness and
indoor sports provision)
To serve the North of the
Borough
Within Vale Farm
Recreation Ground.
Residents in the North of the
Borough have the greatest distance
to travel to visit a swimming pool.
The Borough has significant unmet
demand for swimming pools.
Current facility is aging and will
become increasingly expensive to
maintain. It is an ideal location for
a sports hub which will increase
capacity and enable an expansion
of and potential to introduce new
facilities.
Centre of the Borough FPM 2016 identifies the centre
of the Borough in wards such
as Stonebridge, Mapesbury and
Barnhill as areas with high levels of
unmet demand
High
Medium
Medium / as
opportunity arises
Chapter Seven - Priorities for Future Provision 92

93
Sports Facility Location Reason / Comments Priority
H / M / L
Reprovision of Bridge
Park Community
Leisure Centre
The provision of
additional ‘pay and
play’ health and fitness
facilities in the Kilburn
area potentially through
the redevelopment of
Charteris Sports Centre
Provision of 652 Health
and Fitness stations to
meet current unmet
demand and further
175 by 2016 to meet
expected demand from
population growth.
Sports Halls
4-6 courts
New and upgraded
Sports Halls equivalent to
12-15 courts
At or near current location. Current facility is aging, poor mix
of functions and will become
increasingly expensive to maintain
and satisfaction will reduce but
public access is good. Area of
high deprivation, poor health, low
income, large young population
enhances need for an affordable
pay and play sports facility.
Current location of
Charteris sports centre or
nearby in Kilburn.
Across the Borough but
in particular the Northern
periphery of the borough
Unmet demand for pay and play
health and fitness provision in the
area. Current building is restricted
by size and structure. Only to
progress if pay and play sports hall
provision made elsewhere in the
vicinity e.g. St Augustine’s school.
To satisfy significant levels of unmet
demand and ensure affordable
accessible facilities in areas of
greater deprivation. To make sure
all parts of the borough are within
a 1.6 km walking catchment of a
health and fitness facility.
Provision by the local authority in
areas where affordable pay and
play access is essential to enable
use by the local community.
North of the Borough To increase supply of pay and
play provision in the north of the
borough. Quality of current sports
halls is poor.
Central / East / South of the
borough
publicly accessible provision.
Quality of current sports halls
is poor. Additional demand
coming from proposed housing
developments. New Provision
should have affordable community
access arrangements. Upgrading of
old sports halls needed to increase
capacity.
Synthetic Turf Pitch Central of the borough. Lack of provision in the area, parts
of Tokyngton/ Barnhill/ Welsh Harp
has to travel over 20 minutes to
a STP. Need for affordable pay
and play provision in the borough.
Increase in population in this area
means there will be additional
demand for this facility.
Medium / as
opportunity arises
Medium / as
opportunity arises
High
High
Medium
Medium

Chapter Seven Priorities for Future Provision
Sports Facility Location Reason / Comments Priority
H / M / L
Pitch Improvements GEC Pellat Road Recreation
Ground
King Edward VII Park,
Willesden
John Billam Recreation
Ground
Drainage improvements will allow
for new football, Gaelic, cricket
pitches to meet unmet demand
Lay out football pitches to meet
unmet demand.
Drainage improvements & cricket
wicket to allow for more intensive
use.
High
High
High
Vale Farm Improve cricket wickets High
Northwick Park Drainage improvements & cricket
wicket to allow for more intensive
use.
Silver Jubilee Recreation
Ground
Pitch and pavilion improvements to
allow for more intensive use.
Alperton Sports Ground Upgrade floodlights to increase
floodlit training facilities in the
borough.
Tiverton Green and
Tenterden Sports Ground
Poor pitch quality, drainage
improvements required to improve
rugby provision in the borough.
King Edward VII, Wembley Install pitches for football & cricket
to meet existing unmet demand
in an area of expected population
growth which is under provided
for in both football & cricket.
Refurbish pavilion.
New Pitch Facilities Roe Green Park Install pitches and changing
facilities for football & cricket to
meet unmet demand in an area
where provision is currently focused
on schools
Vale Farm Bring grass floodlit training ground
on former Wasps site back into use
as there are no other floodlit grass
training facilities in the borough.
Gibbons Recreation Ground Provision of changing
accommodation that will enable
pitches to come into full use
Eton Grove Install pitches and changing
facilities for football & cricket to
meet existing unmet demand in
an area of expected population
growth and where existing
provision is currently focused on
schools.
Grove Park Install football pitches (junior/mini)
to meet unmet demand in an area
of expected population growth
Medium
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Chapter Seven - Priorities for Future Provision 94

95
Sports Facility Location Reason / Comments Priority
H / M / L
New pay and play
rugby pitch
Tennis court upgrades Eton Grove
4 Additional Tennis
courts
Chalkhill Sports Ground Install pitch and changing facilities
for football to meet unmet demand
in an area of expected population
growth.
Roundwood Park Annex Install pitches and changing
facilities for football to meet unmet
demand.
(Needs to be explored further to
determine suitability).
Preston Park Install football pitches (junior/mini)
in consideration of cricket wickets
to meet unmet demand
Location to be explored
further.
Alperton Sports Ground
Woodcock Park
Chelmsford Square
Gladstone Park
Roe Green
Areas which fall outside
of catchment of existing
provision - School site
MUGA upgrade One Tree Hill Open Space
Chalkhill Youth Centre
Additional MUGAs Gibbons Recreation Ground
or nearby location
King Edward VII Park,
Wembley
Location to be explored further to
enable the development of rugby.
To meet unmet peak demand.
Tennis courts in poor or dilapidated
condition. Upgrading facilities in
borough parks identified as priority
by Tennis Development Group.
Refurbished courts will meet unmet
demand in areas lacking pay and
play provision.
Demand calculations indicate
there is a total deficit of 17 courts
in the borough. 13 courts can be
refurbished, leaving need for 4
new courts. Additional provision
required to increase informal sport
with free access to children to use
the courts and help to develop the
sport in the borough.
MUGAs in parks and youth centres
which are in poor or dilapidated
condition, which serve areas of
high young person population
density. Resident survey indicates
need for greater provision for
young people.
Lack of publicly accessible
facilities in the areas of high youth
population density.
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
Medium
High

Chapter Seven Priorities for Future Provision
Sports Facility Location Reason / Comments Priority
H / M / L
Additional MUGAs Church Lane Recreation
Ground / Youth Centre
Woodcock Park
Eton Grove
Gladstone Park (East)
Neasden Recreation
Ground
Additional MUGAs South Kilburn Open Space
Alperton Sports Ground
Preston Park
Sherran’s Farm
Lack of publicly accessible
facilities in the areas of high youth
population density.
Lack of publicly accessible
facilities in the areas of high youth
population density.
BMX track refurbished Chalkhill Lack of dedicated cycling facilities
in the Borough. Redevelopment
potential of almost disused facility
Netball courts Netball court provision
as part of Sports Centre
redevelopment and at new
centres
Netball provision in
schools
Need to provide publicly available
courts in the borough for this
priority sport.
2 per secondary school New hard court areas should
provide for a range of sports
including netball.
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Medium
Chapter Seven - Priorities for Future Provision 96

PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation
requires local authorities to set standards locally for
open space, including indoor and outdoor sport and
recreational activities as a mechanism for assessing local
provision and identifying whether or not the authority is
deficient in open space, sport and recreation facilities.
This Strategy identifies local standards for indoor and
outdoor sports provision. The local standards indicate the
level of sports facility provision required to meet current
and future population sporting needs in the borough.
The standards take into account, where relevant,
that Brent residents will use facilities in neighbouring
boroughs, which may be closer to their home. This is
particularly the case for swimming pools and sports halls.
The local standards should not be used to determine
the level of developer contributions as this requires a
discrete assessment of the needs arising from housing
development.
The standards comprise of quantitative and qualitative
components. Accessibility standards are also set, and the
desirability of these will in some cases be influenced by
young person population densities or the distribution of
schools in providing opportunities for new facilities.
The local standards need to:
Chapter Eight Local Standards
• ensure facilities are adaptable and imaginative to meet
the requirements of the borough, its diverse ethnic and
cultural communities and its changing population.
• encourage facilities that provide access by all sections of
the community and adoption of sports equity policies.
• ensure that public sector facilities include resources
to ensure that the facility charges are affordable, that
programming recognises the needs of all users and low
and under-represented groups are specifically targeted.
• ensure there is development of facilities of sufficient
quality and distribution to encourage increased levels
of participation and help address socio economic issues
such as reducing crime, improving poor health and
offering employment opportunities
• ensure the adoption of quality standards in design,
construction and energy efficiency.
• ensure facilities are accessible by public transport,
bicycle and foot to ensure good practice in sustainable
development.
• ensure planning conditions require new sports facilities
on school sites to provide accessible, affordable
community access through agreed facility management
arrangements.
• only fund / contribute to improvements in school sports
facilities where clear management plans and design
practice maximises sporting use outside of school hours
by Brent residents.
Local Standards For Indoor
Sports Provision
SWIMMING POOLS
Currently Brent has 4 pools that are at least 17m long
and are available for community use i.e. pay and play,
or registered membership (2 local authority pools and
2 private pools). This is equates to 1,088 m² of water
space.
Current demand
The Facilities Planning Model (FPM) has been used to
model the balance of supply and demand for swimming
pools in the borough taking into account facilities in
neighbouring boroughs. The FPM shows that 14% of
Brent demand is unmet, the equivalent of 2,250 visits per
week. To meet this unmet demand the borough needs
275m² water space or two additional 4-lane pools.
The FPM output suggests 275sqm would be required
to meet unmet demand. The report also states that
consideration should be given to demand from Brent
residents that although may be met by capacity in
facilities outside the borough entail excessive travel
distances. Fifty per cent of Brent residents have to walk
more than 20 minutes to the nearest pool, with some
residents having to walk over 50 minutes to the nearest
pool.
A third of demand is currently met outside Brent, to
reduce the level of exported demand it is proposed that
the two additional pools have 6-lanes. This raises the
total water space requirement to 1,700 sqm.
Projected future demand
The 2016 FPM models show that despite the expected
increase in population and demand, the amount of
unmet demand appears not to change significantly as
existing and new pools (located outside the borough)
absorb the additional demand. However, the location of
new pools in neighbouring boroughs does not improve
accessibility for Brent residents. 50% of residents remain
further than 20 minutes from a pool. Significantly, around
Chapter Eight - Local Standards 98

99
half of the expected population growth is in Wembley,
(Tokyngton ward), which has one of the greatest
distances of travel.
In 2016 there continues to be a total water space
requirement of 1,700 sqm to meet demand and
improve accessibility. This is equivalent to 34 lanes, and
should consist of a minimum of 4 6-lane pools and the
remaining 10 lanes to be provided for in commercial
pools and by opening up access to pool provision in
schools. The required level of provision is equivalent
to 1 lane per 9,000 population or 5.6m² per 1,000
population.
Table 39: Swimming pools local standard
Projected demand to be met
within the borough
Sports Halls
Local Standard
(lanes per 1,000 population)
1,700 m² water 1 lane per 9,000¹ 5.6m²
Brent has relatively good provision of sports halls. There
are a total of 28 sports halls in the borough containing
108 badminton courts. 80 courts are available to the
public to use on either a pay & play basis or with a sports
club or community association. However, 70 % of these
are on school and higher education sites which will have
limited community use.
Current demand
The Facilities Planning Model has been used to model the
balance of supply and demand for sports halls. The model
only considers halls that consist of at least 3 courts and
are available for community use i.e. pay & play, registered
membership or sports club/community use. 48 courts at
10 sites were included in the 2007 FPM analysis.
Current unmet demand in Brent equates to 3,800 visits,
which is the equivalent of 18 courts.
Projected Sports Hall Demand Local Standard (courts per 1,000
population)
Large sports hall:
Total of 87 courts in the form of 3+
court halls
Small sports hall:
minimum 1 badminton sized court
1 court per 3,500 residents
(preference for 4-court halls)
Within 15 mins walking distance
Projected future demand
2016 projected unmet demand is 4,300 visits, the
equivalent of 21 courts. The total provision requirement
by 2016 is 87 courts, the equivalent of 0.29 courts per
1000 population and 44m². This figure includes all forms
of provision including schools which will have reduced
capacity as community use is limited to out of school
hours.
The FPM modelling only considers 3-4 court sports halls,
there is also a substantial number of smaller halls with 1
or 2 courts (often in schools) that play an important role
in providing for both court sports such as badminton and
also activities such as aerobics and yoga. An accessibility
standard is proposed to these smaller halls, so that all
residents should have access to either a larger 3-4 court
Local Standard
(sqm per 1,000 population)
hall (preference 4 court) within 20 minutes walk, or a
smaller hall (at least one badminton court) within 15
minutes walk.
Where new sports hall facilities are provided within
school settings they should be designed so that they are
independent of the rest of the school (including lighting,
heating etc) and have straightforward routes of access to
enable easy community use arrangements to be put in
place that has minimal impact on the rest of the school
and its buildings, thus maximising the benefits to the
whole community.
Table 40: Sports halls local standard
Local Standard
(sqm per 1,000 population)
0.29 courts per 1,000 population
44 sqm

Health and Fitness
Chapter Eight Local Standards
There are 20 health and fitness suites in the borough
and these provide a total of 1,258 health and fitness
stations. This is the equivalent of 4.77 stations per
1,000 population which is below the London average
of 6.5. However, there are only 1209 stations accessible
to the public through either pay and play or registered
membership.
Projected Future Demand
According to the Active People Survey 9% of residents
go to the gym. This is below London rates (13.5%) but
on a similar level to the national average. Brent’s health
and fitness facilities have a total of 22,105 members
which is an 8% conversion rate (ratio of population that
have memberships). This is below the national conversion
rate of 12% and suggests Brent is currently exporting a
proportion of gym members to neighbouring boroughs.
Therefore, to allow for this latent demand, national
participation rates can be used to estimate demand now
and into the future. Based on national conversion rates
there is currently demand in the borough for a total of
1,860 health and fitness stations.
Growth in the population up to 2016 is expected to
equate to 36,650 health and fitness memberships which
is equivalent to 2,036 stations. The level of provision
to meet projected demand is 6.7 stations per 1,000
population or 1 station per 150 population which
equates to the need for an additional 827 publicly
accessible fitness stations.
To ensure affordable provision, pay and play facilities will
be sought in areas of multiple deprivation.
Table 41: Health and fitness local standard
Projected Demand Stations per 1,000 population Local Standard
2,036 stations 6.7 1 station per 150 population
Table 42: Summary of Local Standards for Indoor Sports Provision
Indoor Sport Facility Standard per
1,000
population
Facility per 1,000
population
Access
Swimming Pools 5.6m² 1 lane per 9,000² Community use pool within 1.6km or 20 mins
travel time
Sports Halls 44m² (large
sports hall)
1 court per 3,500³ Community use 3-4 court hall within 1.6km or
20 mins walk or a 1-2 court small sports hall
suitable for badminton within 15mins walk
Health and Fitness 6.7 stations 1 station per 150 Pay & play in areas of multiple deprivation,
membership/registered membership use elsewhere.
Community use of school facilities out
of hours. Access within 1.6 km or 20 minutes
walk
Chapter Eight - Local Standards 100

Local Standards for Outdoor
Sports Provision
FOOTBALL PITCHES
Football demand has been calculated using Londonwide
conversion rates as Brent has both inner and
outer London characteristics and a similar football
participation rate with London. It is estimated that by
2016, there will be a need for 40 adult, 77 junior and
30 mini pitches to meet demand, which is equivalent to
118ha of grass pitches during peak demand and 0.4ha
per 1,000 population. This is almost double the existing
pitch provision. Opportunities to increase the number of
pitches on Brent parks and open spaces should be taken
alongside improving existing pitches to allow for more
intensive use. Synthetic turf pitches may cater for some
demand for casual play.
RUGBY PITCHES
Kilburn Cosmos RFC is the main rugby club operating
in Brent. This club will be moving to new rugby facilities
to be provided at Gladstone Park. The existing local
authority rugby pitches can be used for football and by
schools in need of pitches. The new pitch at Gladstone
Park is expected to meet current demand and into
the future However if levels of participation increase
significantly an additional pitch may be required.
CRICKET PITCHES
It is estimated that there will be a minimum requirement
for 11 cricket pitches available for community use by
2016. There are currently 8 local authority pitches and 4
pitches on school sites. By 2016 there will be a shortfall
of one cricket pitch to meet minimum demand estimates.
There will be a further shortfall if community use of
school pitches is reduced. A provision level of 11 pitches
is equivalent to 1 pitch per 27,500 population or 0.04
pitches/ 0.08ha per 1,000 population.
GAELIC FOOTBALL PITCHES
Currently there are 8 Gaelic football pitches in the
borough, with clubs playing at 7 of the 8. An additional
pitch will be opening shortly at Gladstone Park to allow
for club expansion. There is demand for expanded
facilities at Silver Jubilee Recreation Ground also, giving
a total demand for 9 pitches. This is a provision level
equivalent to 1 Gaelic pitch per 34,000 population or
0.03 pitches and 0.06ha per 1,000 population.
CHANGING FACILITIES
Changing rooms are an integral part to the functionality
of a sports facility or ground. Changing rooms should
be designed to allow separated showering facilities that
101
will accommodate use at the same time by different age
and gender groups. People need toilet facilities and
places for changing, and it should be expected that these
are available in good condition when hiring outdoor
sports facilities. Although schools are more likely to have
changing room facilities, these should also be publicly
accessible for use outside of school hours and should
be designed so that facilities can be separated from rest
of school and in an easily accessible location to enable
community access. Onsite changing facilities or access
to adjacent changing facilities will be expected on all
sites offering sports facilities incorporating two or more
grass pitches. On larger pitch sites, enhanced changing
facilities in the form of a sports pavilion will be expected.
SYNTHETIC TURF PITCHES
It is considered that Brent is slightly below the London
average for Synthetic Turf Pitches and that the London
average should be adopted given their popular use; this
is equivalent to 1 STP per 50,000. By 2016 there will be
demand for at least 1 further pitch.
TENNIS COURTS
It is estimated that there is currently demand for 10,552
tennis match slots in any 4 week period. This is the
equivalent of 91 tennis courts. With expected population
growth up to 2016, demand is expected to grow to
11,426 match slots and the equivalent 99 tennis courts.
The corresponding standard of provision to meet this
demand is 1 tennis court per 3,000 population or 0.32
courts per 1,000 population and 0.028ha per 1,000
population.
MULTI USE GAMES AREAS
Multi use games areas are popular with children and
young people. Current provision is not considered to
be enough as indicated by recent resident survey and
a increased level of provision is proposed. There are
currently 18 good quality MUGAs in the borough, with
4 new facilities planned by the summer 2009. A further
2 MUGAs in areas with young population densities are
in need of refurbishment. The current distribution of
MUGAs has been compared to child population density
and 11 new facilities are required in parks and recreation
grounds which serve areas of high youth population
density, raising the total provision to 35. This is equivalent
to 1 MUGA per 8,000 population and 150m² per 1,000
population. As MUGAs provide for children and young
people a shorter travel distance of 800m is proposed for
the accessibility standard and will apply in areas of high
young person population density. Where new MUGAs
are provided on schools they should cater for a range
of sports including netball and, where appropriate, they
should be floodlit to enable community use out of
school hours.

Chapter Eight Local Standards
NETBALL COURTS
Netball is a priority sport for the borough and for participation to increase there needs to be a higher level of sports
facility provision than current levels. At present there are no private or public outdoor courts in the borough other
than on school sites. 5 public courts will be available at Gladstone Park from summer 2009. It is recommended
that all secondary schools should have two netball courts (these can also be used for tennis) and where schools are
providing new MUGA facilities these should be large enough to allow for netball. As netball is typically a winter sport,
floodlighting should be provided to allow greater use by the public outside of school hours. To raise the profile of the
sport, netball courts should also be provided as part of the redevelopment of Vale Farm and Bridge Park sports centres.
The recommended total provision is 39 netball courts in the borough, the equivalent of 1 court per 7,500 population
and 0.13 courts/ 130sqm per 1,000 population.
ATHLETICS TRACKS
Although the current provision rates for athletics tracks is below that of the London average there does not appear to
be demand for additional provision, it is therefore considered that the current provision standard should apply, and be
reviewed at a later date.
BOWLING GREENS
As bowling is a sport that is in decline in Brent and in London, it is anticipated that current provision levels will be
sufficient in the future. There are 9 greens currently, which is equivalent to 1 green per 33,300 population for expected
population growth and 0.03 rinks/ 0.009ha per 1000 population.
Chapter Eight - Local Standards 102

Table 43: Summary of Local Standards for Outdoor Sports Provision
Outdoor Sports
Facility
Netball Courts 0.13 court or 130
sqm
Changing Rooms All outdoor sports
facilities with 2 or
more grass pitches.
103
Standard per 1000
population
Synthetic Turf Pitches 0.02 pitches or 0.02
ha/200sqm
Local Standard Quality Standard Access
1 per 50,000 Full size, floodlit STP
of good or excellent
quality
Athletics Tracks 0.02 lanes 1 lane per 50,000 Good or excellent
quality
Football Pitches 0.4 ha 1 ha of grass pitch
per 2,500 population
Gaelic football Pitches 0.03 pitches or 0.06
ha/600sqm
Tennis Courts 0.32 courts or 0.028
ha/280sqm
MUGAs 0.13 MUGA or
150 sqm
1 per 7,500 Good or excellent
quality, floodlit.
All outdoor sports
facilities with 2 or
more grass pitches.
Good or excellent
quality
1 pitch per 34,000 Good or excellent
quality
1 court per 3,000 Good or excellent
quality
1 MUGA per 8,000
population
Bowling Greens 0.03 rinks or 90sqm 1 bowling green per
33,300
Rugby Pitches New facilities at
Gladstone Park
expected to meet
demand
Cricket Pitches 0.04 pitches or
0.08ha/800 sqm
Good or excellent
quality
Good or excellent
quality
1 pitch per 279,000 Good or excellent
quality, floodlit
1 pitch per 27,500 Good or excellent
quality
Of good or
excellent quality.
Accommodate use
at the same time
by different age &
genders. Provide
toilet facilities.
Larger pitch sites to
provide enhanced
facilities in the form
of a pavilion.
Publicly accessible
within 1.6km or 20
minutes walk
Retain existing
provision and
accessibility
Publicly accessible
within 1.6km or 20
minutes walk
Located to maximise
club development
Publicly accessible
within 1.6km or 20
minutes walk
Publicly accessible
within 800m or 10
minutes walk in areas
of high young person
population density
Retain existing
provision and
accessibility
Retain new provision
at Gladstone Park
Publicly accessible
within 1.6km or 20
minutes walk
Provision linked to
schools and sports
centres.
Publicly accessible
adjacent to sports
pitches (2 or more
pitches).

Chapter Eight Local Standards
Chapter Eight - Local Standards 104

105
Partnerships
The delivery of the sporting infrastructure mentioned within this
strategy must have innovative solutions to the current problems, and
new partnerships should be identified in order to sustain and develop
facility provision.
The potential partners that could help deliver the strategy
recommendations are shown below:
• Central Government (e.g. through new initiatives, 2012 legacy plans)
• London Boroughs / neighbouring Boroughs
• Sport England
• National Lottery and other funding streams
• National Governing Bodies of Sport
• Regional Agencies
• Health Service
• Commercial Enterprises
• Housing Developers and Associations
• Non local authority Sport, Health and Fitness Providers
• Crime Reduction Authorities
• London Borough of Brent Council Departments
- Education (including Building Schools for the Future and
other capital initiatives)
- Housing Departments
- Planning Department (including section 106 requirements
• Clubs
• Local Community
The 2012 Olympics and Paralympics present a unique opportunity
for sport to be used as a showcase and deliver a sporting legacy. This
may provide new partnership streams which previously might not
have been available.
Resources
Increasing demands through increasing populations and government
regulations has added pressure on public services. This has meant
that money towards facility improvements has been spread across
the services and large sums of money available for projects have
been restricted. It is important to identify new sources of funding
and partnerships in order to bring about improvements to the sports
facilities. This may mean that the council has to join up approaches to
get the desired goals.

• London Borough of Brent Capital Funds
• Prudential Borrowing
• Capital receipts from sale of land
• Site development (in the case of Bridge Park it has been
identified that this could be funded through housing
development on the site.)
• External funding (such as the lottery)
• Section 106 (increasing amount of money generated
for sport)
• Joint Ventures between London Boroughs
• Commercial Enterprise
• Sponsorship
• Local Community Funds
• 2012 legacy, this may bring about new funding streams
previously not available
• Sports Clubs who may have access to more external
funding
• Revenue Support from the council to help with
management of facilities
• Sports National Governing Bodies
• Building Schools for the Future (strategic need not just
school needs)
• Regeneration/Enterprise Fund
• Public/Private Partnerships
• Trusts
• Partnership Delivery through education/health etc.
• Opportunities presented by planning policy changes to
fund major sporting infrastructure developments.
• Cultural Industries/Art funding streams
Building Schools for the Future
The Government has pledged to replace or renew all
secondary schools, including special schools, over the
next 10 to 15 years under the programme name of
Chapter Nine Delivery
Building Schools for the Future (BSF). It is anticipated
that any new build schools will be funded using the PFI
process, with refurbishment funded by traditional capital
funding mechanisms. This programme has a major part
to play in building new sports facilities. With less funding
being available through the lottery and Sport England,
the Building Schools for the Future programme may
contain the only substantial source of investment that is
needed to improve and provide new sports facilities.
It is vital that this strategy takes into account the BSF
programme and it helps to dictate what sports facilities
are factored into the building of a new or renewed
school. It is important that sport has an input into the BSF
process from the outset to allow for the correct facilities
to be strategically placed into areas of need that will serve
the whole community not just the school. Community
use is a key component to the BSF programme and this
needs to be maximised. This means that decisions on the
design of the building need to be considered carefully.
The BSF programme is limited to providing sports facilities
such as sports halls, dance/gymnastics studios, health
and fitness, synthetic turf pitches, MUGA’s, tennis courts,
netball courts, basketball courts, all weather cricket
wickets, nets and pitches, grass football pitches, rugby
pitches, and athletics facilities. The BSF programme is
reluctant to provide facilities such as swimming pools as
they are costly to maintain and manage. However there
are opportunities for the Local Authority to add capital
to the programme in order to get additional facilities
such as swimming pools, separate area for changing,
and reception areas to enable the facilities to be open to
the public at the same time the school is in use. It is also
important to consider running costs and schools may
need support with running costs if they are to provide
community use to less mainstream provision. Dual use
facilities are growing in popularity, however the emphasis
needs to be placed on design to ensure the facilities are
functional for the school and provide community access.
The primary focus of the BSF will be on geographical
areas with particularly low levels of pupil achievement,
attainment and high levels of deprivations. Therefore, the
investment will start with those schools where standards
are lowest and the greatest impact on standards can be
achieved. Within the borough three schools have been
identified as priorities and these are Alperton Community
School, John Kelly Technology College and Queens Park
Community School. The locations of the schools are
shown on the map on the next page.
Chapter Nine - Delivery 106

Map 52: Secondary schools in Brent
Secondary Schools in
Borough of Brent
Claremont High
School
St Gregory’s R.C
High School
Wembley High
Technical College
The map identifies that there is lack of schools located in
the central, east and north east of the borough which
as previously stated are the two areas in greatest need
for indoor sports provision such as swimming pool,
sports halls and health and fitness facilities. The schools
107
JFS
Kingsbury
High school
Preston Manor
High School
Copland Community School
& Tehnology Centre
Alperton Community
School
John Kelly Technical
College (Girls)
John Kelly Technical
College (Boys)
Convent of Jesus &
Mary R.C. High School
Alperton Community School is located in an area of
unmet demand for swimming pools, publicly accessible
sports halls, health and fitness facilities, MUGA and
tennis courts. Each site will have its limitations to what
facilities it will be able to accommodate and this will need
to be explored.
John Kelly Technology College is in an area of the
greatest unmet demand for a majority of sports facilities
such as a publicly accessible swimming pool, publicly
accessible sports hall, health and fitness facilities, MUGA,
synthetic turf pitch, and indoor tennis. This location
would benefit the most from improved access to health
and fitness facilities.
Queens Park School is located in an area where the
greatest demand is for publicly accessible sports hall
provision and south of the borough is under-supplied
with public accessible grass football pitches.
�0�R �
�,
Queen’s Park
Community School
Capital City Academy
Cardinal Hinsley
R.C. High School
Legend
Borough Boundary
Secondary
sde.CORPDATA.Major_Roads
are located in similar positions where there are already
sports facilities, however, as these are mostly private, the
schools do have an important part to play in providing
community accessible facilities. There are schools located
close to the central and north east parts of the borough
and these sites such as Kingsbury, Copland School and
John Kelly Technology College provide in ways into
adding facilities located close to these areas and there
may be an opportunity to position facilities in slightly
different areas where there is greater need.
Kingsbury is located in an area of demand for a range of
sports facilities such as a swimming pool, a play and pay
health and fitness facility, and a publicly accessible sports
hall.
Claremont High School, JFS and St Gregory’s R.C High
school are all located close to the north border of the
borough. JFS and Claremont High School already have
a range of sports provisions however to increase the
capacity of these facilities there needs to be public access.
There is also a need for more health and fitness provision
in this area as well as swimming pool provision.
Preston Manor High school is also located in an area
of demand for both health and fitness facilities and a

swimming pool. It is also in the vicinity of need for a
synthetic turf pitch, but with Wembley High school and
Vale Farm having facilities not too far away, it wouldn’t
be an ideal location for this type of facility.
Wembley High School, located towards the north west of
the borough, is in an ideal location to join up with Vale
Farm to provide a community hub for a range of facilities
such as tennis, football, sports hall provision, MUGA, and
other community provision.
South of the borough which would include schools such
as Cardinal Hinsley R.C High School, Convent of Jesus
and Mary R.C High School and Capital City Academy,
would benefit the most from improved community access
to sports halls, outdoor football pitches, and extra tennis
court facilities which were open to the community.
If any new schools are planned for or old schools are to
be located in different positions, it is important that this
strategy has an influence over the location of the new
schools, otherwise the sports facilities will not be utilised
to their potential and will not have the desired impact on
the local community.
All the schools and their current facilities should be
taken into consideration as well as the improvements
that need to be made to these in order to create better
provision and provide better community access. It is also
important to take into consideration the needs of the
local community, and the sports facilities they would like
to have in particular locations.
There are opportunities for the schools to join together
with sports national governing bodies to provide facilities,
such as local development centres for indoor tennis.
Sport Development has an important part to play in
making sure the facilities will be utilised to their potential
and working with the governing bodies will help to make
sure the facilities have there desired effect.
The BSF programme is about being innovative in the
design and make up of the building and working in
partnership to create the best environment for the
needs of the local community. For example, the basic
4 court sports hall may cater for the school, however it
may not be right for the community. Spaces need to be
interchangeable to meet the needs of the community.
With the BSF programme there is an unique opportunity
to enhance the current stock of sports facilities and make
sure the facilities meet 21st century expectations. It will
allow the borough to plan for future sporting needs and
locate facilities in areas of greatest demand and hopefully
Chapter Nine Delivery
provide students and local communities with facilities
in which to progress in sport and help them to lead an
active healthy lifestyle.
Planning obligations
The strategy has identified standards and areas for
improvement and it is vital that the strategy helps form
part of the planning process. This will allow sport to gain
an essential foothold into future planning, and forms the
evidence base needed for developers to provide these
facilities through development and planning obligations.
Planning obligations otherwise known as Section 106
(S106) planning gain, is a useful tool to help aid the
delivery of sports improvement programmes across
the borough. All new developments that are likely to
increase pressure on existing infrastructure, including
school places, transport, health, open space and sport
facilities may be required to provide for these on-site, or
if not practicable to make financial contributions towards
the cost of providing for these facilities elsewhere in the
locality.
Through the adoption of Brent’s s106 Planning
Obligation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Oct
2007, a standard charge applies to all new residential
developments and commercial developments greater
than 500m². This is an agreed amount that the council
considers reasonable to mitigate the pressures from
new development without jeopardising the financial
viability of schemes. This charge provides the option for
combined education, transport, open space and sport
contributions which can be applied more flexibly to
enable bulk funding for large infrastructure costs. For
example, instead of individual negotiations for different
services, a total cost is agreed towards the provision and/
or the improvement of education and/or transportation
and/or open space and sport infrastructure in the local
area. In theory this example could mean the full amount
is spent on open space and sport infrastructure from one
scheme.
In addition to the standard charge, monies can also
be negotiated towards the cost of new or improved
infrastructure which is over and above the usual impacts
of development that have already been calculated
within the standard charge. Historically the council has
approved a number of housing schemes on private sports
grounds which have been compensated for through s106
agreements. This has provided a large funding stream
for many improvement programmes of existing public
open spaces and sports facilities in the borough. As the
majority of the private sports grounds have now been
developed, and more robust policies exist to protect
108
Chapter Nine - Delivery

sports grounds from development, opportunities for
large sum s106 agreements are increasingly rare. Should
there be an exceptional circumstance allowing the loss
of existing sports provision, this should be adequately
compensated for through a separate s106 agreement.
To fund the high costs involved with sports facility
improvements this will require significant contributions
to be met from development. Improvements such as
pitch drainage, new buildings including sports halls,
pavilions and changing rooms, and purpose built facilities
such as swimming pools, courts and artificial pitches can
range from around £75,000- £5 million+. While these
could be fully funded through development, this would
rely on large or significant scale development schemes
coming forward in areas of deficiency, which can offer
large lump sum payments to be spent in the general
vicinity of the development. In many cases, s106 monies
only partially fund these projects and require funding
from other sources. In practice the number of large
scale development schemes requiring s106 obligations
fluctuate each year (roughly between 30-50 and probably
20-30 are signed) and it is not always appropriate to
prioritise monies towards sport facilities improvement in
each case.
In practice, as there is a limited availability of s106
contributions with different services competing for
equally important priorities of need, not all improvement
programmes can be funded by s106 obligations and
contributions. Sport provision is only one element
of a number of pressures requiring new provision or
improvement in the borough, and competes with other
higher priority needs. Such demands include new school
places and education facilities, transport improvements,
new health facilities, improved public open space and
play facility provision, training opportunities, public art
provision, public realm improvements, new community
spaces etc. Sport does need to be raised high on the list
of priorities due to the poor levels of provision, and low
participation rates compared to London and England.
It should also be recognised for its health benefits and
contribution to crime reduction, particularly amongst
adolescents.
It is therefore particularly important the deficiencies
for sport provision are identified in the borough and
recommendations for where these can be improved
are disseminated to the wider network. This includes
Council members, council officers in the Parks, Sports
Development, and Planning Services, Brent’s s106 officer
and developers.
105
When development proposals do come
forward, this forms the evidence base in which monies
can be prioritised towards improving sports participation
109
in the Borough.
Due to the nature of development, it is often difficult to
predict when a large scale planning application, which
could offer significant contributions towards sports
improvement will be submitted or when this will be
built. Although in many cases pre-application advice
is given to developers, this is not always the case, and
therefore there is no reliability of when a development
may come forward. Also once applications are approved
and s106 agreements signed, the developer has 3 years
to make a start on the development. In some cases,
due to any number of reasons this may not proceed, or
the construction phase takes longer than 3 years. This
therefore makes it difficult for the council to time the
delivery of a sports facility improvement programme in
line with new development.
While planning gain is a useful method of delivering
improved sports facility provision, there are constraints
which limit its use. Negotiating on how s106 monies will
be used when competing with other priority pressures,
uncertainty as to how much, where and when funds will
become available, and setting a time-frame in the delivery
of a programme of sports improvement facilities are some
of these. In many cases, particularly for more expensive
improvements, s106 monies used in combination
with other funding streams may be the most practical
approach to delivering a sports improvement programme.

Chapter Ten Review and Monitoring
This strategy has been produced so that the development
of sports facilities within the Borough can be provided for
in a planned and co-ordinated way that meets the needs
of Brent’s whole population and satisfies areas of greatest
demand.
It is proposed that this strategy is reviewed on an annual
basis in October each year by the strategy steering group.
The findings of this review will be reported to the Brent
CSPAN at their subsequent meeting in the New Year.
Each review will compare achievements against priorities,
taking account of changes in circumstances and potential
new opportunities. An annual review will allow any
slippage to be recognised and priorities re-timetabled
accordingly. The review will also provide an updated
facility audit of indoor and outdoor facilities and this
information will be fed into the Active Places database.
A comprehensive review of the strategy will need to
be undertaken in 2019 to allow sufficient time for a
subsequent strategy to be produced.
Chapter Ten - Review and Monitoring
110

Graph Map Table Description Page
Map 1 Wards within the Borough of Brent 11
Map 2 Population densities by ward 12
Map 3 Key regeneration areas within Brent 12
Table 1 Brent’s population by ethnicity 13
Graph 1 Ethnic distribution by age group 2006 and 2016 13
Graph 2 Population pyramid 14
Map 4 Deprivation levels within individual wards 14
Map 5 The most and least income deprived wards in the borough 15
Map 6 Male life-expectancy gaps between deprived and affluent wards in
Brent (Harlesden to South Kenton along the Bakerloo line)
Map 7 Main bus and rail routes within Brent 16
Map 8 Public transport accessibility levels in Brent 17
Map 9 Cycle routes in Brent 17
Table 2 Brent’s Active People survey results 18
Map 10 Brent’s 2006 Active People survey results by middle super output
area
Table 3 Active People survey results ‘zero participation‘ 19
Table 4 Active People survey - key results 20
Table 5 Active People survey - sports provision satisfaction levels results 21
Table 6 Active People survey results, Brent’s surrounding boroughs 21
Table 7 Active People survey results, Brent’s regional statistical neighbours 22
Table 8 Active People survey results. green space and participation rates
within Brent’s regional statistical neighbours
Table 9 Active People survey results, cycling 23
Table 10 Active People survey results, individual sports participation rates 23
Table 11 Active People survey results, outdoor sports and activities
participation rates
Graph 3 Parks survey respondents’ preferences for facilities that would
encourage residents to take part in more physical exercise
Graph 4 Parks survey respondents’ preferences for improvements 32
111
Table of Maps, Graphs
Map 11 Location of mosaic type D27 in Brent 34
Map 12 Location of mosaic type C20 in Brent 34
Map 13 Location of mosaic type E28 in Brent 34
Map 14 Location of mosaic type F36 in Brent 35
Map 15 Dominant market segmentation map for Brent within the lower
super output areas
Map 16 Sport England market segmentation - Jamie 36
Map 17 Sport England market segmentation - Kev 37
Map 18 Sport England market segmentation - Tim 38
Map 19 Sport England market segmentation - Chloe 39
Map 20 Sport England market segmentation - Leanne 40
Map 21 Example of Brent facility catchment area map 42
15
19
22
24
32
35

and Tables within the strategy
Graph Map Table Description Page
Map 22 Example of travel time to facilities map 42
Map 23 Location of Brent’s sports centres 46
Table 12 Swimming pools in Brent 47
Table 13 Capacity ratios - swimming pools 48
Map 24 Walking time to the nearest publicly accessible swimming pool 48
Map 25 Catchment map - swimming pools 49
Map 26 Swimming pools within 1.6km catchment including neighbouring
boroughs’ facilities
Graph 5 % population within 20mins walking time of pool sites 50
Map 27 Travel time map - swimming pools 50
Map 28 Personal share - swimming pools 51
Graph 6 Levels of unmet and met demand, capacity and utilised capacity for
swimming pools
Map 29 Unmet demand in 2016 - swimming pools 52
Map 30 Catchment map - sports halls 53
Table 14 Sports halls in Brent 54
Table 15 Capacity ratios - sports halls 56
Map 31 Travel time map - sports halls 57
Map 32 Personal share - sports halls 57
Graph 7 % population within 20mins walking time of sports halls 58
Map 33 Unmet demand 2007 - sports halls 58
Table 16 Health and fitness facilities in Brent 60
Table 17 Capacity ratios - health and fitness 61
Map 34 Catchment map - health and fitness facilities 62
Map 35 Travel time map - health and fitness 62
Table 18 Gym memberships 63
Map 36 Catchment map - indoor athletics 64
Table 19 Capacity ratio - indoor bowls 65
Map 37 Catchment map - indoor bowls 65
Map 38 Travel time map - indoor bowls 65
Map 39 Catchment map - squash 66
Table 20 Capacity ratio - indoor tennis 67
Map 40 Travel time map - indoor tennis 67
Table 21 Number of pitches by each pitch type 70
Table 22 Pitch quality ratings 70
Table 23 Changing facilities quality ratings 71
Table 24 Total number of football pitches in Brent 72
Table 25 Area of football pitches in Brent 72
Map 41 Catchment map - football pitches 72
Table 26 Demand for football pitches 73
Table 27 Rugby pitches in Brent 74
Map 42 Catchment map - rugby pitches 74
Tables of Maps, Graphs and Tables within the strategy 112
49
51

Graph Map Table Description Page
113
Table of Maps, Graphs
Table 28 Cricket pitches in Brent 75
Catchment map - cricket pitches 75
Table 29 Gaelic football pitches and pitch quality 76
Catchment map - Gaelic football pitches 76
Table 30 Synthetic turf pitch quality scores 77
Catchment maps - synthetic turf pitches 78
Map 46 Travel time map - STPs 78
Table 31 Capacity ratios - STPs 78
Table 32 Tennis court and quality scores in Brent 79
Map 47 Catchment maps - tennis courts 79
Table 33 Tennis courts on education sites 80
Table 34 Private tennis courts 80
Table 35 Multi-use games areas in Brent 81
Map 48 Catchment map - MUGAs / ball courts in Brent with an 800m
catchment area
Map 49 Brent population density map for 5 to 19 year olds 82
Map 50 Travel time map - athletics tracks 83
Map 51 Catchment map - bowling greens 84
Table 36 Borough bowling greens and pavilions, sites and quality scores 84
Table 37 Supply versus demand analysis 91
Table 38 Facility priorities 92
Table 39 Swimming pools local standard 99
Table 40 Sports halls local standard 99
Table 41 Health and fitness local standard 100
Table 42 Summary of Local Standards of Indoor Sports Provision 100
Table 43 Summary of Local Standards for Outdoor Sports Provision 102
Map 52 Secondary schools in Brent 107
82

and Tables within the strategy
Tables of Maps, Graphs and Tables within the strategy 114

Produce by Brent Council’s Sports Service and Planning Service, Brent House 349-357 High Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA9 6BZ,
020 8937 3707, www.brent.gov.uk/sports, in conjunction with Sport England and Leisure and the Environment/Genesis
Printed on silk coated paper with recycled
content and ECP pulp sourced from
well managed/sustainable forests, using
vegetable based inks
Design and production by Greene Design www.greenedesign.co.uk