€¦ · Web viewCambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire District Council. SWIMMING POOLS...

Cambridge City CouncilSouth Cambridgeshire District Council

SWIMMING POOLS ASSESSMENT

FACILITIES PLANNING MODEL

June 2008

FINAL REPORT

CONTENTS

Executive Summary Page 2

1. Introduction Page 4

2. 2008 provision unweighted – run 1 Page 6

3. 2008 provision with weightings – run 2 Page 9

4. 2021 provision with weightings – run 3 Page 14

5. 2021 provision with new pools at the University of Cambridge and Northstowe – run 4 Page 19

6. 2021 provision with new pools at the University of Cambridge, Northstowe and Cambridge East – run 5 Page 24

7. 2021 provision of new pools at Northstowe and Cambridge East – run 6 Page 28

8. General conclusions Page 32

Appendices

1. Active Places Power Plus explained separate

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

4. Run specification and rule filters attached

5. Summary of outputs for the Cambridge area attached

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

commercial and school facilities. Supply and capacity outstrip total current demand overall, though there is a shortfall of pools in South Cambs to meet its own demand.

Satisfied demand in the area is about the national average, though it is higher in Cambridge than in South Cambs. The choice of pools in Cambridge is good, as the catchments of pools (especially for car users but in many cases also walkers) overlap.

Means of access to pools in the area broadly reflects the national average, though walking access in Cambridge and car access in South Cambs are higher than normal.

Despite good supply, there is a significant level of unmet demand, primarily from those in Cambridge without use of a car, and from car owners in South Cambs. This unmet demand is not concentrated in any one area, and it is difficult to justify any further pools anywhere in the area to meet unmet demand at the current time – most people who live in the area who want to swim can do so.

Throughput of all pools in the area is less than 2/3 of available capacity, and well below levels of use which are considered uncomfortable

There is significant movement of swimmers within the Cambridge area, and the city is a major importer of demand from South Cambs, while three quarters of South Cambs residents swim in the city and other neighbouring local authority areas

In the Cambridge area, as elsewhere, it is simply not feasible to achieve 100% satisfied demand. Diminishing returns set in as facilities increase in number. Increased pool provision would reduce unmet demand by small amounts, and used capacity of pools elsewhere would decrease. A proportion of demand at a new facility would come from unmet demand in the area, but the remainder would be diverted from other pools. There is spare capacity at existing pools and a new pool is therefore not feasible at the present time.

Summary of Run 3 If no further pools are provided in the Cambridge area before 2021 to meet the increased demand

generated by 25% additional residents, levels of unmet demand will only be increased slightly. This is because there is adequate spare capacity in existing pools to absorb additional demand. Any unmet demand remains due to lack of accessibility, not capacity of pools.

The whole of the study area remains within the driving catchment of at least 1 pool and most have the choice of 2 pools and more. In Cambridge 70% still live within the walking catchment of a pool

There are small pockets of unmet demand north and west of Cambridge and along the A14 corridor, particularly near Northstowe, but this is in insufficient concentrations to justify additional pools to meet demand alone.

The increased demand arising from additional population will lead to all pools in the study area reaching and exceeding their comfortable capacity, with the result that they will feel crowded to participants.

All existing pools will be 13 years older than at present, and not necessarily in a condition suited to the needs of 2021.

For these latter reasons, the increased population and demand arising from the new growth areas in particular will justify the provision of additional swimming pool water space in appropriate locations in the study area, especially in areas of new housing, and particularly in South Cambs

Summary of Runs 4-6 The provision of three new pools at Northstowe, University and Cambridge East satisfies demand

to the highest levels, but in each scenario, this does not increase in proportion to the additional capacity created – in other words for a large investment in pools, there is limited impact on the amount of additional demand is met. Three pools are only marginally better in this respect than two

__________________________________________________________________________Cambridge Area FPM Swimming Pools Assessment Michael Presland, Genesis for Sport England June 2008

2

With any new pool provision, there still remains unmet demand somewhere in the study area, which no amount of additional construction will meet, both in the city where people are precluded from access because they are outside the walking catchment, and in South Cambs by car.

There is little difference in accessibility to pools, though the provision of three pools increases walking accessibility as more people live within walking distance of more pools. Cambridge East is more accessible on foot than the proposed University pool, and (while it is not possible to be precise) Northstowe is likely to have a larger population within its walking catchment than the proposed University pool

Because of the size of the proposed University pool, albeit that community use will be constrained, any scenario that includes this as new provision is likely to provide spare capacity to meet demand. If the University pool were not built, the addition of two pools either side of the city would leave all pools operating at slightly above their comfortable capacity.

There is little justification for providing a 50m pool in Cambridge to meet community requirements. 50m pools have a different usage profile to standard 25m pools, which tend to cater for most of the community’s swimming needs throughout the country at present. 50m pools can serve as regional training centres, provide venues for senior competition, act as development centres or training centres, as well as being a venue for recreational swimming in the wider community or a base for local club use. As such they require to be planned strategically, particularly in view of the high costs of initial provision and subsequent maintenance, upkeep and revenue. The ASA has a national facilities plan for swimming, and any proposals for new 50m pools should conform to this. According to available information, there are 19 50m pools in England at present with two others under construction. The nearest 50m pools to Cambridge are in Norwich and Wycombe. Because of this distribution, the good transport links from Cambridge and the burgeoning population, it may well be that Cambridge is an appropriate location for a 50m pool to meet the specialist swimming needs outlined above. However in terms of meeting local community needs, which is the main focus of the FPM, it is doubtful that this is the best option.

The provision of one new pool in each of the two main growth areas would enable additional demand to be met, particularly in areas of high growth, where walking access would be good. However, this option would mean that pools operated above their comfortable capacity. Additional modern water space would be required, and negotiating community access to any new pool that might be built at the University could rectify this.

Alternatively existing pools could be improved to help meet this deficiency. This appraisal does not address other options such as the rationalisation, refurbishment or closure of existing pools in the area. It should be noted that by 2021 most pools would be well over 20 years old, and some appreciably older. The model allocates less usage to these because of their age, but their location is important in assessing how demand is met. Further analysis of these pools might be necessary in the future.


3

1. INTRODUCTION

The Current Study

The issues to be addressed in the local study are

To assess the extent to which the existing supply of swimming pools meets current levels of demand from the resident population;

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

To assess the likely implications of potential changes to the supply/location of swimming pools, taking into account population increases and major new housing developments in the area up to 2021, with a focus on the proposed Cambridge East urban extension and Northstowe.

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

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

weighting on facilities elsewhere in England. These weightings reflect largely the age of the facility or, in the case of commercial health and fitness clubs with pools, the limits of their attractiveness to those parts of the population with sufficient disposable income.

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

Runs 4-6 test the location of future pool provision

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

The Study Area

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

Distribution of pools in the Cambridge area

Supply of pools in the Study Area

The database of swimming pools to be included in the study has been verified by officers of both local authorities in agreement with Sport England. The rule filter adopted in the assessment is included in Appendix 4 (separate) – the assessment incorporates all operational indoor pools available for community use over 17m in length.


Symbol Range Sports Facility SymbolsUrban > 10K MAIN/GENERAL

Town and Fringe LEISURE POOL

Village LEARNER/TEACHING/TRAINING POOL

Hamlet & Isolated Dwelling

DIVING POOL

LIDO POOL

4

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

The supply of pools currently found in each local authority is listed below together with the demand and capacity of each measure in visits per week in the peak period (vpwpp). In the following assessment, visits per week refer to these peak hour visits. An annual figure for throughputs refers to a modified total derived from these weekly visits.

From the outset it should be noted that overall in the study area capacity exceeds demand, but that this is not the case in South Cambs.

District Number of sites

Number of pools

Demand vpwpp

Capacity vpwpp

Capacity Visits pa

STUDY AREA 9 12 14950 20100 1,565,700Cambridge 7 10 7100 17550 1,398,300South Cambridgeshire 2 2 7850 2550 167,400

Rounding of Figures

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

Maps to accompany this report are available separately.

2. 2008 PROVISION UNWEIGHTED – RUN 1

Introduction

This Run assumes that all facilities in England are equally attractive. Another way to think of this is that every facility in the country is less than fifteen years old, well maintained and well managed. These are clearly unrealistic assumptions, and therefore very little analysis has been undertaken on this Run. The Run does however provide some illuminating contrasts in a number of ways. For example, it gives us an insight into how demand for swimming across the Cambridge area would be served if all pools were brought up to modern standards in their present locations and open for their current hours. This section is also useful in explaining some of the terms used in the model – a fuller explanation is set out in Appendix 1.This run has been undertaken for illustrative purposes only, and Run 2, which follows, using weighted information, forms the baseline for the whole study.

SupplyThere are 9 sites in the study area, comprising 12 pools, with a total potential capacity in the weekly peak period of 20,150 visits (equivalent to 1.57m visits per annum). The combined water area of all pools is 2,710m2.

In Cambridge, there are 7 sites with 10 pools, and a potential capacity of 17,550 visits per week, the equivalent of 1.4m visits per year in total. Total pool space is 1780m2 (see separate map).

In South Cambs, there are 2 sites with 2 pools, and a potential capacity of 2,550 visits per week, the equivalent of 167,000 visits per year in total. Total pool space is 410m2 (see separate map )


5

The age and ownership of pools in the area is set out in the table below. There is a range of ages and forms of ownership and therefore management of pools/condition.

Pool Length Width Area (m2) Date built

Ownership

Parkside Pool 25 18 450 1999 LAParkside Pool 200 1999 LAParkside Pool- Diving Pool 12.5 12.5 156.25 1999 LAThe Leys School Sports Complex 25 10.7 267.5 1995 EducThe Abbey Pool 25 12 300 1991 LAThe Abbey Pool - Learner 12 12 144 1991 LANext Generation Health Club 25 10 250 2004 CommercialFrank Lee Centre 25 8.5 212.5 1973 LAGreens 25 6 150 1999 CommercialLA Fitness 17 10 170 2004 CommercialCambridge total 2300Impington Sports Centre 25 10 250 1995 EducationMelbourn Community Sports 20 8 160 1991 EducationSouth Cambs total 410

In terms of relative provision compared with other areas, Cambridge has 19.5 m2 of swimming pool water space per 1000 population, and South Cambs 2.9m2, or 10.5m2 overall. Comparable ratios for other areas are Cambridgeshire 9.5m2, East region 13.1m2 and England 13.0m2. Overall provision in the study area is therefore considerably below the regional or national average

DemandFrom the resident 2008 population of the study area of 257,850, demand for swimming is estimated at 14,950 visits per week (equivalent to 1.14m visits per annum). This represents about 74% of available capacity in the area. Broken down into the LA areas, the situation is as follows:

Population Demand % of capacityCambridge 118,600 7100 40%South Cambs 139,250 7850 306%

There is clearly a difference between the demand/supply balance in Cambridge where there are several pools and 60% theoretical spare capacity, and South Cambs where there are only 2 pools to accommodate a higher population, and therefore an excess of demand over capacity.

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

Satisfied demand in the Cambridge area is estimated at 13,750 visits per week (1.05m visits per annum), or 92% of total demand. This is slightly lower than the average for England as a whole (93%), and is a reflection of the rural nature of much of the study area, and relatively poor accessibility to pools that are mainly in the city. The equivalent figures for satisfied demand in Cambridge and South Cambs are 95% and 90%, which highlights the different levels of accessibility and the location of pools

Within the study area, 82% of trips to pools are made by car, 4% by public transport and 13% on foot. The national average is 75% by car, 6% by public transport and 13% on foot. The respective figures for Cambridge are 68%, 7% and 25%, which reflect lower car ownership levels in the city, better walking


6

access to local pools and the even geographical spread of pools, and for South Cambs 96%, 2% and 2%.

Unmet demand in the study area is for 1150 visits per week (equivalent to 88,000 visits per annum), representing about 8% of total demand. The totals for Cambridge are 350 visits per week (26,000 p a) representing 5% of total demand, and for South Cambs 800 per week (62,100 pa) or 10% of total demand. All of this is ‘no go’ or declined demand, where potential users cannot or choose not to visit pools because of distance and time. It is not the result of lack of capacity at existing pools in the area. 66% of this is from those without access to a car - i.e. those who live outside or on the edge of a walking catchment who choose not to use a pool because of the time and distance involved in walking there, and 34% from those with cars who live at the edge of the catchment (probably in the rural parts of South Cambs). In Cambridge 96% of unmet demand is from those without a car (only 4% with a car cannot or choose not to visit a pool), while in South Cambs 46% is from car owners, which suggests that a majority of those with a car cannot access a pool.

When aggregated over the whole study area the unmet demand is equivalent to 203m2 of additional water, at the national average usage of 70% of capacity, or about one new 4-lane pool. This is split 60m2 in Cambridge and 143m2 in South Cambs. It is spread thinly over much of the whole study area, and is never in a sufficient concentration to justify the provision of an additional pool in any one location. The largest concentration of aggregated unmet demand is found in the northern part of Cambridge but there is no 2km grid square where the total exceeds 50m2, which is the equivalent of about 1 swimming lane.

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

In this case, the model estimates that about 97% of Cambridge’s demand is met in the city itself (only 3% is exported), but only about 17% of South Cambs is met in pools in that district, the remainder being exported to Cambridge and to a smaller degree other neighbouring local authorities, including North Herts. and East Cambs. Overall Cambridge is a net importer of demand to the tune of 3,550 visits per week (50% of total demand) and South Cambs a major exporter (5,550 visits, 71% of the total)

ThroughputThe projected throughput of pools in the study area is estimated at 11,800 visits per week, which represents 59% of available capacity. In Cambridge this is 10,300 visits per week/ 820,000 pa (59% of capacity) and in South Cambs 1,500 per week/98,000 pa (also 59%). The actual capacity of pools will depend on a number of factors, such as pool programming, comfort for swimmers, etc. None of the capacity of any pools is constrained in this run by weighting factors. It is unlikely and not desirable that usage levels will match the maximum theoretical capacity. A used capacity of 70% is usually regarded as comfortably full. Neither LA in the area exceeds this comfortable level of throughput.

Relative ShareRelative share is used in the model to identify areas whose residents are relatively disadvantaged in terms of their access to pools. By looking at the share of water within a local area, it highlights areas where there is more generous or less generous supply of pool space. This is done by calculating the number of pool units per demand unit. The outputs show negative and positive values, in comparison with the England average. In general, the areas south and east of Cambridge demonstrate positive values signifying high relative share above the national average, and the areas north and west negative values and therefore lower than average share.

Summary of Run 1If all the pools in the Cambridge area were modern, well maintained, located in their present position and open for their current hours, there would be a good level of supply to meet the demand for


7

swimming in the City. Supply easily exceeds demand, and throughput in total is below the comfortable level of use of 70%. Despite the good supply, there is some unmet demand, but this is from those without access to a car and who live at the edge of or beyond reasonable walking distance. Because this unmet demand is spread throughout the area, there is no one location in the area where a new pool could be justified on these grounds alone. Cambridge imports demand from South Cambs and there is some limited export of demand outside the overall study area

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


8

3. 2008 PROVISION WITH WEIGHTINGS – RUN 2

Introduction

This run represents an assessment of current provision in 2008 with two forms of attractiveness weighting added to individual facilities:

For every non-commercial facility, a weighting is applied based upon the year built or year of most recent refurbishment. These are on sliding scales with older pools being less attractive. In this assessment, nationally derived weightings are applied based, (though in other studies locally determined weightings have been used)

Commercial pools have a constraint in that demand from deprived areas is less likely to be allocated to them. The Index of Multiple Deprivation is used to calibrate this constraint, using nationally derived data, so that the more deprived an output area, the progressively less likely that demand will be allocated to a commercial pool.

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

Supply/CapacitySites Pools Visits per week Visits p a Water area

Study area 9 12 20150 1.57m 2710m2

Cambridge 7 10 17550 1.4m 2300m2

South Cambs 2 2 2550 167000 410m2

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

DemandPopulation Visits per week Visits p a % of supply

Study area 257850 14950 1.14m 74%Cambridge 118600 7100 539000 40%South Cambs 139250 7850 598000 307%England 62%

The demand for pools is based on population and participation rates, and is unaffected by weighting. Demand in the study area is concentrated in the main built up areas of Cambridge and the fringe parishes, and is highest in areas of higher density housing, and where the population is younger and therefore more likely to go swimming. It is more thinly distributed around South Cambs, although total demand is higher because of the larger overall population. Overall demand is significantly less than total capacity, particularly in Cambridge, but exceeds capacity in South Cambs where there is a poor supply of pools.

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

Study area 13700 1.04m 92%Cambridge 6700 509000 94%South Cambs 7050 536000 90%England 92%

Satisfied demand is marginally lower than the level in unweighted run 1, and reflects the reduced attractiveness of some pools. In the study area, it remains at about the national average level, though it is higher in Cambridge and lower in South Cambs.


9

The levels of satisfied demand in Cambridge are due to the supply and capacity of pools and the urban nature of the city, which means that most residents are within the reasonable catchment of existing facilities, in some cases more than one, as these will overlap. This is true even for those who do not have the use of a car. Public transport is also more effective in the city in allowing access to pools, many of which are on good bus routes. Conversely, accessibility in the rural parts of South Cambs is poorer to fewer facilities, despite high car ownership levels. Walking accessibility is self evidently also poorer

The graphs below show that 100% of the population of the whole study area actually lives within 20 minutes drive time of at least one pool, and in Cambridge all within the catchment of more than 2 pools. 60% of the overall population of the study area lives outside the walking catchment of a pool, 30% in Cambridge and nearly 90% in South Cambs. However 20% of the population overall (nearly 50% in Cambridge) have a choice of pools to walk to and while there is a majority of residents who live outside the walking catchment of any pool, nearly 30% also have a choice of 2 pools or more on foot.

Mode of transportCar Public transport Foot

Study area 83% 5% 13%Cambridge 69% 8% 24%South Cambs 96% 2% 2%England 75% 6% 19%


10

Compared with the national average, access by people in the Cambridge area to pools relies slightly more heavily on the car. However there is a clear difference between Cambridge, where pools are closer and more numerous, and South Cambs, where there is almost a total reliance on the car, due mainly to the lack of pools and remoteness of most residents

Unmet demand Visits per week Visits p a Requirement No go Car No carStudy area 1200 93100 215m2 100% 32% 68%Cambridge 400 30750 71m2 100% 4% 96%South Cambs 800 62350 144m2 100% 46% 54%England 100% 19% 81%

Despite the apparent surplus of water space in the study area, there is still a significant element of unmet demand (it is not possible anywhere to achieve 100% satisfied demand). None of this is caused by lack of capacity at existing pools – rather unmet demand is all from ‘no go’ i.e. pools are outside or at the edge of the catchment within which potential users would choose to visit pools. Two thirds of this overall is from people without the use of a car (mainly in Cambridge), and a third from car owners, particularly those in the more remote parts of South Cambs, who choose not to travel some distance to a pool.

The total unmet demand over the whole area could support the provision of the equivalent of only about one new pool (215m2 of water), at the national average usage level of 70%. However even this low level of unmet demand is spread thinly over much of the study area, and there is no one sufficient concentration of demand where a new pool could be built which would not draw its throughput from existing facilities. The highest levels of Total Aggregated Demand (the measure used) within any 2 km2 grid are only 52m2 north of the city centre and along the A14 corridor, and this represents about a quarter of a pool unit, insufficient to justify new provision in one area at this time.

Export and Import Demand exported Demand

importedDemand retained Net import/export

Cambridge 250 visits 3% 4350 40% 6450 91% +4150 +58%South Cambs 5800 74% 450 27% 1200 15% -5400 –69%

Export and import are measured only for the two local authorities in the study area. Because of the range of pools in the study area, Cambridge is a major importer of demand (almost 60% of total demand is imported), mainly from South Cambs. Conversely three quarters of South Cambs’ demand is exported, mainly to the city pools but also to those in neighbouring local authority areas such as North Herts, East Cambs and Huntingdonshire.

The weightings applied to pools in Run 2 tend to accentuate the import and export of demand in the study area compared with Run 1, because of the relative age and attractiveness of pools.

Export


11

Import

ThroughputVisits per week Visits p a % of available capacity

Study area 12450 967000 62%Cambridge 10800 859000 62%South Cambs 1650 108000 64%England 57%

While the demand and supply estimated by the model remains unchanged from Run 1, throughput is affected by the weighting factors applied in the model. Downweighting reduces the attractiveness of older pools, and also makes commercial pools less attractive because fewer members of the local community are able or willing to incur expensive membership or user fees. In many areas and nationally, this downweighting results in reduced throughputs compared with an unweighted run. In this case, the weightings produce slightly increased throughputs in the study area as the facilities in the overall area become relatively more attractive than those further afield outside the study area. Most facilities in the study area are relatively new - only one pool was built before 1974, and about 50% in the study area have been constructed or refurbished in the last 9 years.

ATTR %% this Demand of

CapacityModified annual

thro'put 61.5 859403ABBEY POOL (CAMBRIDGE) 89 59.7 163760CAMBRIDGE PARKSIDE POOLS 97 65.6 334105FRANK LEE CENTRE 51 34.5 50344GREENS HEALTH & FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 97 65.6 67665LA FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 100 67.4 70459NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 100 67.4 124236THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 94 63.2 48833 IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 94 63.2 51717MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 97 65.4 55885Throughput in the Cambridge area therefore represents about 62% of overall capacity, and this is well below the level at which pools are perceived to be at the maximum comfort level. Individual levels of


12

throughput at pools vary around this overall figure, dependent on the age and attractiveness of individual pools.

At current levels of usage there is spare capacity at all pools.

Relative ShareThe effect of weighting is to confirm the previous distribution of relative share values, which is that the population south and east of Cambridge is more accessible to pools than the areas north and west in the city, and reinforce the areas of poorest access to pools.

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

commercial and school facilities. Supply and capacity outstrip total current demand overall, though there is a shortfall of pools in South Cambs to meet its own demand.

Satisfied demand in the area is about the national average, though it is higher in Cambridge than in South Cambs. The choice of pools in Cambridge is good, as the catchments of pools (especially for car users but in many cases also walkers) overlap.

Means of access to pools in the area broadly reflects the national average, though walking access in Cambridge and car access in South Cambs are higher than normal.

Despite good supply, there is a significant level of unmet demand, primarily from those in Cambridge without use of a car, and from car owners in South Cambs. This unmet demand is not concentrated in any one area, and it is difficult to justify any further pools anywhere in the area to meet unmet demand at the current time – most people who live in the area who want to swim can do so.

Throughput of all pools in the area is less than 2/3 of available capacity, and well below levels of use which are considered uncomfortable

There is significant movement of swimmers within the Cambridge area, and the city is a major importer of demand from South Cambs, while three quarters of South Cambs residents swim in the city and other neighbouring local authority areas

In the Cambridge area, as elsewhere, it is simply not feasible to achieve 100% satisfied demand. Diminishing returns set in as facilities increase in number. Increased pool provision would reduce unmet demand by small amounts, and used capacity of pools elsewhere would decrease. A proportion of demand at a new facility would come from unmet demand in the area, but the remainder would be diverted from other pools. There is spare capacity at existing pools and a new pool is therefore not feasible at the present time.


13

4. 2021 PROVISION WITH WEIGHTINGS – RUN 3

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Existing facilities remain the same.

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


Study area 9 12 20150 1.57m 2710m2

Cambridge 7 10 17550 1.4m 2300m2

South Cambs 2 2 2550 167000 410m2

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



Population in the study area increases overall by 25%, but the increase in demand for swimming increases by only 21%, the result of an ageing in the population, and declining participation rates among the older population. In Cambridge the respective figures are 26% and 26%, and in South Cambs 24% and 21%, a reflection of the differing growth rates and demographic profiles

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

Overall without the provision of additional pools, demand as a proportion of total supply increases to nearly 90%. In Cambridge this increases to over half, and in South Cambs to 3.5 times local capacity

Satisfied demand Satisfied demand in 2021 increases significantly by 3,000 visits per week overall, which is in line with total demand. As a proportion of total demand, satisfied demand remains at 92% which is now slightly below the national average. This proportion stays constant in both Cambridge and South Cambs. The main reason for this is the spare capacity is existing pools in 2008, which is able to absorb much of the additional demand expressed by the increased population.

Visits per week Visits p a % of total demandStudy area 16650 1.27m 92%Cambridge 8400 641000 94%South Cambs 8250 627000 90%


14

England 91%

The entire study area remains within 20 minutes drive time of at least 1 pool, though there is slightly reduced accessibility in South Cambs to more than 1 pool, the result of the development of particularly Northstowe. There is little change to walking accessibility – 60% of the population remain outside the walking catchment of a pool.



The increased population by 2021 and its distribution make little difference to the mode of transport used by those whose demand is satisfied. The variation between predominantly car based access in South Cambs and more walking in Cambridge is repeated, though there is a marginal increase in car access in Cambridge at the expense of public transport and walking (though the figures are rounded).


15

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


In line with the increased population and demand, unmet demand increases by about a quarter to 1450 visits per week, mainly in the South Cambs area. All of this unmet demand is still due to the lack of accessibility to existing pools, and remains mainly applicable to those without access to a car, although in South Cambs almost half of residents with a car are still outside driving catchments. Overall, unmet demand in the area is not caused by lack of capacity at existing pools, even in 2021 with an increased population.

The total unmet demand over the whole area could now support the provision of about 255m2, or the equivalent of about 1.2 new 25m 4-lane pools at the national average usage level of 70%. However this remains distributed throughout much of the area and the highest concentrations of unmet demand are in the north west of Cambridge and the A14 corridor near Northstowe, which amount to only 86m2 in any one location. This remains insufficient to justify additional pool provision in any one location solely for this reason.




Because of the spare capacity at existing pools, particularly in Cambridge, the levels of imported and exported demand remain substantially unchanged in 2021, the minor differences being accounted for by the slight redistribution of population.

Export

Import


16


Study area 15100 1.18m 75%Cambridge 13300 1.06m 76%South Cambs 1850 119000 71%England 59%

Throughput at existing pools in the study area increases by about 20% overall, or 23% in Cambridge and 12% in South Cambs, and now represents 75% of total capacity of pools (76% in Cambridge and 71% in South Cambs). This is in excess of the comfortable capacity of pools.

Individual pools are mainly used up to and in excess of their comfortable capacity, and some (particularly the newer commercial pools) are almost up to their absolute capacity.

Name of ATTR %% this Demand of


thro'putABBEY POOL (CAMBRIDGE) 63 65.2 178622CAMBRIDGE PARKSIDE POOLS 80 83.5 425016FRANK LEE CENTRE 30 31.6 46157GREENS HEALTH & FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 80 83.5 86079LA FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 89 92.4 96492NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 92.4 170153THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 72 74.8 57798 IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 72 74.8 61218MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 65 67.7 57850

Relative ShareThe effect of additional demand with no increase in capacity or supply of pools in 2021 is that the relative share of pools in the whole area decreases slightly, by comparison with the national average. The geographical variations remain – i.e. there is better access to pools by those who live in the south and east of Cambridge.

Summary of Run 3 If no further pools are provided in the Cambridge area before 2021 to meet the increased demand

generated by 25% additional residents, levels of unmet demand will only be increased slightly. This is because there is adequate spare capacity in existing pools to absorb additional demand. Any unmet demand remains due to lack of accessibility, not capacity of pools.

The whole of the study area remains within the driving catchment of at least 1 pool and most have the choice of 2 pools and more. In Cambridge 70% still live within the walking catchment of a pool

There are small pockets of unmet demand north and west of Cambridge and along the A14 corridor, particularly near Northstowe, but this is in insufficient concentrations to justify additional pools to meet demand alone.

The increased demand arising from additional population will lead to all pools in the study area reaching and exceeding their comfortable capacity, with the result that they will feel crowded to participants.

All existing pools will be 13 years older than at present, and not necessarily in a condition suited to the needs of 2021.

For these latter reasons, the increased population and demand arising from the new growth areas in particular will justify the provision of additional swimming pool water space in appropriate locations in the study area, especially in areas of new housing, and particularly in South Cambs


17


18

5. 2021 PROVISION WITH NEW POOLS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND NORTHSTOWE – RUN 4

Introduction

This scenario sets out the 2021 situation with existing facilities and the addition of the following pools: University of Cambridge West site, 50 x 20m pool (1000m2), with 83 total opening hours, 52

peak hours, but weighted at 50% to reflect the degree of likely community usage (in Cambridge)

Northstowe, 25 x 13m pool (325m2), with 83 total opening hours, 52 peak hours, to serve primarily the needs of the new growth area north of Cambridge (in South Cambs)

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


Study area 11 14 29350 2.03m 4035m2

Cambridge 8 11 24500 1.75m 3300m2

South Cambs 3 3 4800 282000 735m2

The number of pools increases by 2 but the water area increases by nearly 50% and the capacity by 45%. This scenario considers the provision of one new pool in both Cambridge and South Cambs, so the increase in capacity is spread across both local authority areas.



The demand for pools remains the same as in Run 3, but as a proportion of supply decreases significantly from 90% to 62% overall, from 51% to 36% in Cambridge and from 358% to 190% in South Cambs. ‘Spare’ capacity is slightly higher than the national average.



Despite the provision of an additional 450-50% of water space/capacity in the study area, the amount of satisfied demand increases only marginally by 300 visits per week (50 in Cambridge and 250 in South Cambs). This is found across the study area but the relatively good accessibility by road means that much of the western and northern part of the city and the fringe Cambridge area benefit most. Inevitably the biggest impact is near the location of the proposed pools in Northstowe and west of Cambridge.The effect on accessibility of two additional pools is that all but about 3% of local residents now have access to more than 1 pool by car, and a larger proportion of the overall population (nearly 50% overall) and particularly in South Cambs (now 25%) are within the walking catchment of a pool.


19



The availability of 2 additional pools, particularly a new pool in Northstowe surrounded by new housing, marginally increases walking accessibility to pools overall, at the expense of car usage. There is still an overriding dependence on the use of the car in the overall study area.



20

As with satisfied demand, the major increase in capacity makes relatively little difference to the levels of unmet demand, which remain at about 6% overall. This is equivalent to almost 1 new pool, but it is distributed widely over the whole area. There are no parts of the area where individual values are more than 51m2 of water, which is less than a quarter of a new pool. More pools in addition to the two proposed are therefore not justified, as such provision would not meet additional demand without diverting usage from existing pools.

A higher proportion of unmet demand is now from those without access to a car, as almost all car users have access to more than 1 pool.




There is a significant shift in the balance of import and export of demand. The provision of an additional pool in South Cambs allows this district to retain more of its own demand, and there is a large rise in the amount of demand imported from neighbouring local authority areas. At the same time an additional pool in Cambridge allows the city to accommodate additional demand throughout the city, as catchments are adjusted by the provision of the new pools.

Export

Import

ThroughputDespite an increase in capacity of 45-50%, throughputs increase overall by only 21% (10% in Cambridge and 94% in South Cambs)). Overall the % of available capacity used falls from 75% to 62% (still higher than the national average), but in South Cambs this actually increases to 75%, which exceeds the comfortable levels of use. It is apparent that the new pool at Northstowe will attract relatively more usage than the proposed University pool due to the restricted community access to the latter.

Visits per week Visits p a % of available capacity Study area 18300 1.28m 62%Cambridge 14700 1.08m 60%


21

South Cambs 3650 207000 75%England 59%



thro'putABBEY POOL (CAMBRIDGE) 63 56.5 154972CAMBRIDGE PARKSIDE POOLS 80 72.4 368740FRANK LEE CENTRE 30 27.4 40045GREENS HEALTH & FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 80 72.4 74681LA FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 89 80.1 83714NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE)

8980.1 147624

THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 72 64.9 50145UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 50 45.2 159665

IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 72 64.9 53114MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 65 58.7 50153NORTHSTOWE 100 90.5 103782

Despite the additional provision, some pools are still operating at a higher than comfortable level, particularly at Northstowe.

Relative ShareThe effect of making significant provision at Northstowe and the University is to increase the relative share of pools over the whole study area, to the extent that all of Cambridge and all but the NW edge of South Cambs now has a positive share of access to pools – i.e. it is better than the national average.

Summary of Run 4 Run 3 demonstrated that because of spare capacity at existing pools in the Cambridge area, even

a significant increase in demand from the additional population could be absorbed without the need for additional pools for this reason. However all pools would be operating above their comfortable capacity.

Run 4 has tested the effectiveness of providing 2 new pools in the city and at South Cambs’ first main growth area at Northstowe. It is not possible to be absolutely specific about the effects of each of these proposals individually, without separate assessments.

The provision of these 2 new pools increases capacity to the extent that it now represents 162% of demand (compared with 111% if the pools are not provided)

Two new pools allow almost all of residents of the study area to have a choice of pools to visit by car, and 50% of residents are now within the walking catchment of at least 1 pool

The new pools and in particular the Northstowe proposal increases walking accessibility though there is still an overriding dependence on the use of the car

While the new pools in the locations proposed reduce the absolute levels of unmet demand, there is only a minor impact on relative levels, which remain at about 6%. Most of this is from residents without use of a car, which it would be impossible to meet under any circumstances, particularly in an area with a degree of rurality. The remaining levels of unmet demand are insufficient to justify any further pools.

The new pools increase the import of demand from other neighbouring districts – new pools, particularly of the size proposed, are more attractive to users than existing older pools in the area and in surrounding districts.

Throughputs of pools increases with the construction of new pools, but not in proportion to the increase in capacity. Some pools however still operate in excess of their levels of comfort.

The provision of additional pool space in this area allows the relative share of pools to exceed the national average – that is, people in the Cambridge area now have better than average access to pools.


22


23

6. 2021 PROVISION WITH NEW POOLS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE, NORTHSTOWE AND CAMBRIDGE EAST – RUN 5

Introduction

This scenario sets out the 2021 situation analysed in Run 5, with existing facilities and two pools at Northstowe and the University, and the following additional pool:

Cambridge East, 25 x 13m pool (325m2), with 83 total opening hours, 52 peak hours, to serve primarily the needs of the new growth area east of Cambridge (pool in Cambridge)

This section compares Run 5 with Runs 3 and 4, as a means of estimating the best approach to pool provision in 2021.


Study area 12 15 31600 2.15m 4360m2

Cambridge 9 12 26800 1.87m 3625m2

South Cambs 3 3 4800 282000 735m2

In this run, the number of pools increases by 1 in Cambridge. The capacity and pool area are 8% greater than in Run 4, all located in the city. Compared with the existing number of pools, capacity is 52% higher and water area about 60%.



Demand remains the same as in all 2021 scenarios, but as a proportion of supply decreases sharply from 90% (current supply) to 62% in Run 4 and 57% in Run 5 overall. The equivalent figures for Cambridge are 51% and 36% to 33% in Cambridge and from 358% to 190% in South Cambs (there is no change to the number of pools in South Cambs between Runs 4 and 5). More so than in Run 4, there is ample supply to meet demand, and this surplus is significantly higher than the national average.



Despite the further increase in capacity and water area over Run 4, the amount of satisfied demand increases only slightly by about 50 visits per week (or less than 1%) overall (mostly in South Cambs – the figures are rounded). As a proportion of total demand, satisfied demand remains the same as in Run 4.

The effect on accessibility to pools compared with Run 4 is mainly that a very small proportion of South Cambs residents (about 1-2%) now have walking access to 2 pools, mainly in the east side of Cambridge.


24



There is a marginal increase in walking access by both Cambridge and South Cambs residents, as the result of an additional pool in a new housing area. However there is still heavy reliance overall on the use of the car to visit pools.



25

There is a marginal decrease in unmet demand compared with Run 4 of less than 50 visits (the figures above are rounded), and this is split between both Cambridge and South Cambs. Indeed as with previous runs, this is distributed thinly across much of the study area, and no grid square has a value higher than 50m2 of aggregated unmet demand, which equates to only 1 lane. There is certainly no justification for additional provision of pool in excess of the three considered here to meet unmet demand.

The nature of the unmet demand remains unchanged – it is all caused by lack of accessibility to pools mainly from walkers, and not due to pools being full.




The main effect of an additional pool in Cambridge East compared with Run 4 is to increase the amount of demand imported by Cambridge and conversely exported by South Cambs. This is due mainly to the precise location of the pool within the city boundary, but in a location that is accessible to residents of South Cambs, both in existing villages and in that part of the new growth area that lies within the district’s boundaries. Export

Import


Study area 18800 1.28m 60%Cambridge 15450 1.09m 58%South Cambs 3350 191000 70%England 59%

Despite an increase in capacity and water space of 8% compared with Run 4, the throughputs of pools in the area increases by only 3% - pool use is therefore diverted from other pools, without increasing overall participation. This is felt mainly in Cambridge where pool usage increases by 5%, but in South Cambs throughput goes down by 7%, as demand is diverted from existing pools to the new pool in Cambridge East.


26


Capacity

Modified annual thro'put

ABBEY POOL (CAMBRIDGE) 63 52.2 143123CAMBRIDGE EAST 100 83.5 95847CAMBRIDGE PARKSIDE POOLS 80 66.9 340547FRANK LEE CENTRE 30 25.3 36983GREENS HEALTH & FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 80 66.9 68971LA FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 89 74.0 77314NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE) 89 74.0 136337THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 72 59.9 46311UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 50 41.8 147457 IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 72 59.9 49053MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 65 54.2 46318NORTHSTOWE 100 83.5 95847

The proportion of available capacity used overall falls to 60% which is well within the normal comfort factor, though it remains at 70%, and right on the limit, at the two existing pools in South Cambs at Impington and Melbourn. The new pool at Cambridge East attracts additional usage at the expense of other pools in the area, and itself operates at a level above the comfort factor. Other pools are also operating at high levels of use, particularly Northstowe.

Relative ShareAs with Run 4, the provision of additional pools in the area increases the relative share of pools in the study area to local residents, to the extent that all of the study area now has a better share of pools than the national average.

Summary of Run 5 The provision of an additional pool in Cambridge East to meet in particular the needs of the new

development here reinforces the conclusions of the previous run – that there is an increase in capacity but little effect on satisfied or unmet demand, walking access to pools is marginally improved as the new pool creates a new walking catchment around it, and there is a small increase in throughput but not to the same level as the increase in capacity.

An additional pool here further increases capacity in the study area by 8%, but there is only a small increase in the levels of satisfied demand, as new residents will choose to visit this new pool, but much existing demand is diverted from other older pools. Further pools in addition to these three certainly cannot be justified to meet further unmet anywhere in the study area.

Walking accessibility is improved as the new pool brings further people closer particularly in the new development area.

The location of the pool within Cambridge increases the import of demand overall into the city. Throughput levels do not reflect the increase in capacity overall and this further suggests that

demand is diverted from existing pools Because the capacity is highest, the levels of throughput are generally the most ‘comfortable’ of

any of the runs involving additional pool provision, in both Cambridge and South Cambs, though some pools still operate above these levels, as they are newer and more attractive to users.

While not tested, there might be the potential to rationalise the provision of existing pools in the area within this option, without significant detriment to the levels of satisfied demand, accessibility and throughputs.


27

7. 2021 PROVISION OF NEW POOLS AT NORTHSTOWE AND CAMBRIDGE EAST – RUN 6

IntroductionThis scenario sets out the 2021 situation analysed in Run 5, with existing facilities and two pools at Northstowe and Cambridge East, but with the exclusion of the pool at the University.

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


Study area 11 14 24650 1.8m 3360m2

Cambridge 8 11 19850 1.5m 2625m2

South Cambs 3 3 4800 282000 735m2

This scenario has the same number of pools as in Run 4 but a smaller capacity as the large pool proposed at the University is excluded. Of all the scenarios for future pool provision, this option has the lowest capacity, with only 23% more water space than at present.



Demand remains the same as in all 2021 scenarios, but as a proportion of supply is higher than any other scenario where new pools are proposed. Overall supply exceeds demand overall, but is in excess of the 70% level considered comfortable.



Compared with Run 5, and despite a reduction in capacity of about 30%, the exclusion of the University pool makes little difference to the amount of satisfied demand overall, with only about 100 visits lost per week. Compared with Run 4 where there are the same number of pools, satisfied demand here is less than 100 visits per week fewer.

The exclusion of the University pool has little impact on the catchments of pools. A pool in Cambridge East is more accessible by walking than the proposed University pool, being closer to surrounding housing in the growth area, but slightly reduces the accessibility of South Calms residents to pools overall by car, because of the good road links along the A14.


28



The exclusion of the University pool slightly increases the reliance on car access to pools over other options.


The exclusion of the University pool results in the highest levels of unmet demand of any scenario, though this is only about 100 visits per week higher than the best scenario (run 5). Again this is spread thinly over the whole study area, and does not exceed 61m2 in any grid square (along the A14 corridor), and therefore additional pools above those tested cannot be justified to meet additional demand.


29

The nature of the unmet demand remains unchanged – it is all caused by lack of accessibility to pools mainly from walkers, and not due to pools being full.




The main effect of excluding the University pool is to reduce the export of demand from South Cambs to Cambridge as one pool fewer in the city is proposed.

Export

Import


Study area 17800 1.27m 72%Cambridge 14050 1.06m 71%South Cambs 3750 214000 78 %England 59%

The total throughputs in this option are the lowest in any scenario where new pools are proposed, because of the lower capacity. Compared with run 5 where 3 new pools are tested, capacity decreases by about 30%, but throughput is down by only 5%. Compared with run 4, which has the same number of pools, capacity is about 20% less, but throughput is only 3% less. The downside is that overall in the study area, pools are operating at slightly above comfortable capacity, and some pools, particularly the newer ones are up to over 90% capacity.


Capacity

Modified annual thro'put


30

ABBEY POOL (CAMBRIDGE) 63 58.4 160177CAMBRIDGE EAST 100 93.5 107265CAMBRIDGE PARKSIDE POOLS 80 74.9 381134FRANK LEE CENTRE 30 28.3 41406GREENS HEALTH & FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 80 74.9 77191LA FITNESS (CAMBRIDGE) 89 82.8 86532NEXT GENERATION HEALTH CLUB (CAMBRIDGE)

8982.8 152587

THE LEYS SPORTS COMPLEX 72 67.0 51829 IMPINGTON SPORTS CENTRE 72 67.0 54894MELBOURN COMMUNITY SPORTS LTD 65 60.6 51859NORTHSTOWE 100 93.5 107253

Relative ShareAs with Runs 4 and 5, relative share is good all across the study area, and the provision of 2 new pools give the study area better accessibility to pools than the national average.

Summary of Run 6 As with Runs 4 and 5, the provision of additional pools in the area, in this case with the exclusion of

the proposed University pool, increases capacity for swimming. As with all runs, it is not possible to be precise about the separate impacts of the two pools tested in this run, but a comparison with Run 4 (where Northstowe pool is common to both) enables the provision of a pool at Cambridge East to be compared with one at the University.

The exclusion of the University pool decreases satisfied demand in Run 5 by only about 100 visits per week, despite a significant reduction in capacity. Unmet demand rises by the same amount but there is insufficient to justify additional pool provision to that tested, for this reason alone – if any were provided, they would merely divert demand from existing pools. There is a minor impact on accessibility as one pool with a local walking catchment is deleted, but overall there is still heavy reliance on the car. The main effect of excluding the University pool is that with the decreased capacity, all pools in the area start to operate at or above comfortable levels.

Compared with Run 4, the same number of pools is available, although capacity is lower. However, unmet demand and throughput are not reduced to the same degree. There is little difference in accessibility, but the same effects on throughput as above are experienced – that while the provision of two pools in Northstowe and Cambridge East may be a cost effective means of making future provision, all pools will operate above their comfortable capacity. While not tested here, consideration might be given to rationalisation and refurbishment of some other pools, which would have the effect of increasing their attractiveness and therefore throughput.


31

8. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

1. Overall swimming provision in the Cambridge area is poorer than the national average in terms of the amount of water space. Comparing the outputs of the current study with information provided in connection with a national run of the FPM in February 2008, the study area has 10.5m2 of water space per 1000 population in all pools compared with an England average of 13.0m2 and a regional average of 13.1 m2. Cambridgeshire overall has 9.5m2. The individual figures for Cambridge and South Cambs differ greatly – Cambridge has 19.5m2 and South Cambs 2.9m2, one of the lowest levels of provision in the region. Some caution should be applied to direct comparisons as different assumptions have been used in this study and the overall national run (e.g. precise local information has been collected for the Cambridge area which was not available in the national run, which might reduce the numbers of available facilities known to operate elsewhere), but it is clear that the quantity of overall water space in the study area is relatively poor.

2. Existing facilities in the study area are a variety of local authority, school and commercial health and fitness pools. There are 6 LA pools with a water area of 1463m2. Pools on school sites (albeit mostly joint provision and dual use) have a water area of 678m2. Commercial pools currently provide three locations and a water area of 570m2, about one-fifth of total water area. While the attractiveness of the latter has been weighted to reflect their accessibility to the wider public, some provisos should be considered – in many locations, they will not in reality be available to the local catchment because of expensive membership or entrance fees, and in some locations may actually operate above comfortable capacity, as they may cater for after-work use, whereas the model assumes all trips are home based. Nevertheless the presence and influence of commercial health and fitness pools, and others on schools sites with significant community access must be carefully considered as part of overall provision.

3. Despite relatively low levels of pool provision, as in most parts of the country, total capacity of existing pools in the Cambridge area (a combination of pool numbers, water area and hours of availability) exceeds total demand, in this case by about 34% (or put another way, demand takes up only 3/4 of capacity). Satisfied demand (i.e. the proportion of the population who can gain access to a pool with some spare capacity) is about the average, and this reflects the urban nature of Cambridge itself, with good access to local facilities, and high car ownership rates in South Cambs, which means that most residents are within the reasonable driving catchment of existing pools. Indeed about 90% of the population of the Cambridge area are within the catchment of at least 2 pools by car, and there is therefore some choice of where to swim. In Cambridge itself, half the population has a choice of pools within walking distance.

4. However high the levels of satisfied demand, there will always be some unmet demand. In the Cambridge area, this is currently mostly (two thirds) from those who live outside or on the edge of the walking catchments of pools, although (despite the comment above that all residents are within driving catchment of all pools) there is a small proportion of people living on the edge of driving catchments (in South Cambs), who the model assumes will not visit pools. The main areas of unmet demand are in the more densely populated areas of the built up part of the city, where those without a car are unable to access pools outside their walking catchment, and in the outlying parts of South Cambs where driving times are prohibitive. There is no one location in the whole study area where there is sufficient aggregated unmet demand to justify the provision of an additional pool at the present. In the Cambridge area, as elsewhere, it is simply not feasible to achieve 100% satisfied demand. Diminishing returns set in as facilities increase in number. Increased pool provision reduces unmet demand by small amounts, and used capacity of pools elsewhere decreases. A proportion of demand at a new facility will come from unmet demand in the area, but the remainder will be diverted from other pools. A new pool for this reason alone is therefore not feasible at the present time.

5. The current throughput of existing pools in the area equates to about 62% of the available supply of water space. There is therefore spare capacity at existing pools, and further evidence that in quantitative terms at least existing provision for swimming in the Cambridge area is adequate.


32

6. It is clear from the distribution of pools and population in the study area that Cambridge is a major importer of demand for swimming, and South Cambs a major exporter – i.e. that Cambridge pools cater for demand in the city but also have an important role to play in satisfying the demand from residents living outside the city. Major investment in pools which caters for a significant proportion of residents from neighbouring districts may not be a popular decision for some local authorities, though increased throughput from whatever source can be an attractive proposition when considering revenue costs.

7. The situation up to 2021 is interesting. The total demand generated by significant population increase, particularly in the new growth areas in Northstowe, Cambridge East and Cambridge South West Fringe, is still below the available capacity of pools in the area (by about 10%) even if no new pools are built. The whole of the area remains within a 20 minute driving catchment of existing pools, and much of the city within walking distance of pools. Levels of unmet demand increase in absolute terms, but remain at the same relative levels as in 2008, as existing pools absorb increased demand and usage. There remains insufficient unmet demand in any one location throughout the whole study area to justify new pools for this reason alone.

8. However the main impact of additional growth in the Cambridge area will be to increase the actual usage and throughput of pools to a level that exceeds their comfortable capacity, so that pools will feel crowded to use. Additional provision of pools can therefore be justified to provide additional capacity to meet the needs of the increased population . A further requirement would be to provide pools in locations that best meet the needs of the new population.

9. Three new pool locations were tested by the model in a variety of combinations. – Northstowe and Cambridge University, Northstowe and Cambridge East and all three. The model provides a number of conclusions about the best way forward, not all of which are entirely compatible:

The provision of three pools satisfies demand to the highest levels, but in each scenario, this does not increase in proportion to the additional capacity created – in other words for a large investment in pools, there is limited impact on the amount of additional demand is met. Three pools are only marginally better in this respect than two

With any new pool provision, there still remains unmet demand somewhere in the study area, which no amount of additional construction will meet, both in the city where people are precluded from access because they are outside the walking catchment, and in South Cambs by car.

There is little difference in accessibility to pools, though the provision of three pools increases walking accessibility as more people live within walking distance of more pools. Cambridge East is more accessible on foot than the proposed University pool, and (while it is not possible to be precise) Northstowe is likely to have a larger population within its walking catchment than the proposed University pool

Because of the size of the proposed University pool, albeit that community use will be constrained, any scenario that includes this as new provision is likely to provide spare capacity to meet demand. If the University pool were not built, the addition of two pools either side of the city would leave all pools operating at slightly above their comfortable capacity.

There is little justification for providing a 50m pool in Cambridge to meet community requirements. 50m pools have a different usage profile to standard 25m pools, which tend to cater for most of the community’s swimming needs throughout the country at present. 50m pools can serve as regional training centres, provide venues for senior competition, act as development centres or training centres, as well as being a venue for recreational swimming in the wider community or a base for local club use. As such they require to be planned strategically, particularly in view of the high costs of initial provision and subsequent maintenance, upkeep and revenue. The ASA has a national facilities plan for swimming, and any proposals for new 50m pools should conform to this. According to available information, there are 19 50m pools in England at present with two others under construction. The nearest 50m pools to Cambridge are in Norwich and Wycombe. Because of this distribution, the good transport links from Cambridge and the burgeoning population, it may well be that Cambridge is an appropriate location for a 50m pool to meet the specialist swimming needs outlined above. However in terms of meeting local community needs, which is the main focus of the FPM, it is doubtful that this is the best option.


33

The provision of one new pool in each of the two main growth areas would enable additional demand to be met, particularly in areas of high growth, where walking access would be good. However, this option would mean that pools operated above their comfortable capacity. Additional modern water space would be required, and negotiating community access to any new pool that might be built at the University could rectify this.

Alternatively existing pools could be improved to help meet this deficiency. This appraisal does not address other options such as the rationalisation, refurbishment or closure of existing pools in the area. It should be noted that by 2021 most pools will be well over 20 years old, and some appreciably older. The model allocates less usage to these because of their age, but their location is important in assessing how demand is met. Further analysis of these pools might be necessary in the future.

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

Michael Presland, Genesis Consulting for Sport EnglandJune 2008


34

APPENDIX 4 RUN SPECIFICATION AND RULE FILTERS

Study Area:Cambridge City,South Cambridgeshire District,

Rule Filter to be applied to all Runs Include all Operational Indoor Pools available for community use i.e. pay and play,

membership, Sports Club/Community Association Exclude all pools not available for community use i.e. private use Exclude all outdoor pools i.e. Lidos Exclude all pools where the main pool is less than 20 metres OR is less than 160 square

metres.1

Where opening times are missing, assume:Local Authority sites – Mon-Fri 9am-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pmSchool sites – Mon-Fri 4pm-10pm, Sat and Sun 9am-6pm

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

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

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

Attractiveness Weightings Model default weightings to be used for all runs. Weighting for non commercial pools based the year the pool was built or the year it was

refurbished, unless stated in individual run. See Weightings tables below. The same weightings to apply to all water space on a single site.

Include IMD score of output areas to be used to limit attractiveness of commercial pools.

Population projections:ONS population projection for the following;

Runs 1 and 2 2007 R3 onwards 2021

Cambridge City Council/Cambs County Council to provide population data for 2021 runs.Commitments in adjoining area to be include in 2021 runs:

Pools New 25m x 13 pool (325m2) with standard school/community opening hours to be added at

Northstowe new settlement (Grid Ref….) Runs 4-6) New 50m x 16m pool (825m2)with the following community hours(…………………….) at

University of Cambridge, West Cambridge site (Grid Ref……….) (Runs 4-6)

Outputs Full outputs for all Local Authorities within the study areas within each run.

Maps - location/walking catchment, unmet demand, aggregated unmet demand, relative share.

1 160m is equivalent to a 20m x 8m pool. This assumption will exclude very small pools, such as plunge pools and hotel pools.


35

RUN SCHEDULE

RUN 1: Existing position 2008 (unweighted)Current supply of swimming facilities (with updated/checking of existing facilities data), based on 2008 population estimates.

RUN 2: Existing Provision 2008 (weighted)As Run 1, but with standard weighting added

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

RUN 4: Scenario 2 - 2021As Run 3, with: OPEN: University of Cambridge, West Cambridge site (Grid Ref:…………) 50m x 16m,

(825m2), peak/total hours=52hrs/83hrs,

Northstowe Community Pool (Grid Ref: ……..), 25m x 13m, (325m2) peak/total hours=52hrs/83hrs.

RUN 5: Scenario 4 – 2021As Run 4, with:OPEN: East Cambridge (FAC ID……..) 25m x 13m (325m2) community pool with full

opening hours during the peak period


36

APPENDIX 5 SUMMARY TABLES

FPM AREAPOOLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 257851 257851 322150 322150 322150 322150Demand Visits per week in the peak period 14926 14926 18088 18088 18088 18088annual equivalent 1137251 1137251 1378121 1378121 1378121 1378121Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 13771 13704 16637 16966 17003 16880As a % of peak period demand 92.3 91.8 92 93.8 94 93.3annual equivalent 1049219 1044140 1267565 1292623 1295468 1286057Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 82.3 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.3 81.7Public Transport % 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5walkers % 13.4 12.6 12.8 13.9 14.1 13.8Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 1155 1222 1451 1122 1085 1208annual equivalent 88032 93111 110556 85498 82653 92063Sq m required to satisfy this 203.2 214.9 255.1 197.3 190.7 212.5No go as % unmet 100 100 100 100 100 100No go (car) as % nogo 33.6 32 32.5 25.1 25.5 27.5No go (no car) as % nogo 66.4 68 67.5 74.9 74.5 72.5Site Summary Information Sites 9 9 9 11 12 11Sq m 2710 2710 2710 4035 4360 3360Visits per week in the peak period 20125 20125 20125 29338 31598 24645modified annual equivalent 1565723 1565723 1565723 2033475 2148207 1795186standard annual equivalent 1533355 1533355 1533355 2235290 2407462 1877701Capacity used - vpwpp 11811 12452 15124 18310 18798 17788As a % of available capacity 58.7 61.9 75.1 62.4 59.5 72.2Modified annual throughput 918851 967005 1179386 1286635 1284107 1272127Standardised annual throughput 899857 948697 1152313 1395039 1432209 1355244Visits by Car as % all 79.6 81.4 81.2 82.8 83 82.6Visits by PubTrans as % all 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.2 4.3Visits on Foot as % all 15.6 13.9 14 12.9 12.8 13.1Import/Export Summary Demand exported as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0Demand imported as % satisfied capacity 0 0 0 0 0 0Demand retained as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0Net import (+) or net export (-) 0 0 0 0 0 0as % demand 0 0 0 0 0 0


37

CAMBRIDGEPOOLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 118623 118623 149410 149410 149410 149410Demand Visits per week in the peak period 7079 7079 8913 8913 8913 8913annual equivalent 539361 539361 679057 679057 679057 679057Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 6738 6676 8409 8469 8489 8435As a % of peak period demand 95.2 94.3 94.4 95 95.2 94.6annual equivalent 513408 508611 640698 645285 646773 642666Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 67.8 68.9 69.5 68.8 68.6 69.2Public Transport % 7.2 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.4walkers % 25 23.6 23.1 23.7 24 23.4Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 341 404 503 443 424 478annual equivalent 25952 30749 38359 33772 32284 36391Sq m required to satisfy this 59.9 71.0 88.5 77.9 74.5 84.0No go as % unmet 100 100 100 100 100 100No go (car) as % nogo 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6No go (no car) as % nogo 96.4 96.4 96.3 96.3 96.4 96.4Site Summary Information Sites 7 7 7 8 9 8Sq m 2300 2300 2300 3300 3625 2625Visits per week in the peak period 17565 17565 17565 24518 26778 19825modified annual equivalent 1398320 1398320 1398320 1751340 1866072 1513051standard annual equivalent 1338296 1338296 1338296 1868058 2040230 1510469Capacity used - vpwpp 10308 10808 13296 14681 15446 14036As a % of available capacity 58.7 61.5 75.7 59.9 57.7 70.8Modified annual throughput 820596 859403 1060318 1079586 1092889 1058122Standardised annual throughput 785371 823478 1013058 1118520 1176833 1069442Visits by Car as % all 78.3 80.3 79.9 81 81.5 80.4Visits by PubTrans as % all 5.3 5.1 5.2 5 4.8 5.1Visits on Foot as % all 16.4 14.6 14.9 14 13.6 14.5Import/Export Summary Demand exported 155 228 211 157 151 120as % demand 2.2 3.2 2.4 1.8 1.7 1.3Demand imported 3725 4361 5098 6369 7108 5722as % satisfied capacity 36.1 40.3 38.3 43.4 46 40.8Demand retained 6583 6447 8199 8312 8338 8315as % demand 93 91.1 92 93.3 93.6 93.3Net import (+) or net export (-) 3570 4133 4887 6211 6957 5601as % demand 50.4 58.4 54.8 69.7 78.1 62.8


38

SOUTH CAMBRIDGESHIREPOOLS RUN1 RUN2 RUN3 RUN4 RUN5 RUN6 2008 2008 2021 2021 2021 2021POPULATION 139227 139227 172740 172740 172740 172740Demand Visits per week in the peak period 7847 7847 9175 9175 9175 9175annual equivalent 597890 597890 699064 699064 699064 699064Satisfied Demand Visits per week in the peak period 7033 7029 8228 8496 8514 8445As a % of peak period demand 89.6 89.6 89.7 92.6 92.8 92annual equivalent 535811 535529 626867 647338 648695 643391Satisfied Demand by Mode Car % 96.2 96.2 96.3 94.3 93.9 94.1Public Transport % 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6walkers % 2.2 2.2 2.2 4 4.3 4.3Unmet Demand Visits per week in the peak period 815 818 948 679 661 731annual equivalent 62080 62362 72197 51726 50369 55672Sq m required to satisfy this 143.3 143.9 166.6 119.4 116.2 128.5No go as % unmet 100 100 100 100 100 100No go (car) as % nogo 46.1 46 47.7 39.1 39.5 43.2No go (no car) as % nogo 53.9 54 52.3 60.9 60.5 56.8Site Summary Information Sites 2 2 2 3 3 3Sq m 410 410 410 735 735 735Visits per week in the peak period 2560 2560 2560 4820 4820 4820modified annual equivalent 167403 167403 167403 282135 282135 282135standard annual equivalent 195059 195059 195059 367232 367232 367232Capacity used - vpwpp 1503 1643 1828 3629 3352 3751As a % of available capacity 58.7 64.2 71.4 75.3 69.5 77.8Modified annual throughput 98255 107602 119068 207049 191218 214005Standardised annual throughput 114486 125219 139255 276518 255376 285801Visits by Car as % all 88.3 89.1 90.3 90.3 89.6 90.9Visits by PubTrans as % all 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.1Visits on Foot as % all 9.8 9 7.8 8.2 8.9 7.9Import/Export Summary Demand exported 5823 5821 6874 6171 6383 5916as % demand 74.2 74.2 74.9 67.3 69.6 64.5Demand imported 293 436 474 1304 1221 1222as % satisfied capacity 19.5 26.5 25.9 35.9 36.4 32.6Demand retained 1210 1208 1354 2325 2131 2529as % demand 15.4 15.4 14.8 25.3 23.2 27.6Net import (+) or net export (-) -5530 -5385 -6400 -4867 -5162 -4693as % demand -70.5 -68.6 -69.8 -53 -56.3 -51.2


39

Date post:	15-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

€¦ · Web viewCambridge City Council. South Cambridgeshire District Council. SWIMMING POOLS...

Documents