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

• 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