Agenda item

 

To receive and consider the presentation in relation to the Draft Playing Pitch Strategy and its development, giving Improving Places Select Commission Members an opportunity to consider the Strategy and make recommendations ahead of its presentation to Cabinet in April 2026.

 

 

At the Chair’s invitation, the Cabinet Member introduced the item and explained that the Playing Pitch Strategy (Strategy) was fundamental to the council’s plans to protect and invest in outdoor sports pitch provision across the borough. Access to good quality playing pitches did not just benefit sport but was important to health, wellbeing, community cohesion and long-term strategic planning.

 

Over the last year, the council had commissioned Knight, Kavanagh and Page consultants (KKP) to draft the strategy and had worked alongside Sports England, relevant sports national governing bodies, local clubs, schools and community organisations to develop the robust assessment of Rotherham’s current and future pitch needs. The Strategy provided the council with a clear evidence base and highlighted where provision was strong, where pitches were under pressure, and where investment or protection was urgently needed. The Strategy was also aligned with key borough priorities contained within the Cultural Strategy and the Health & Wellbeing Strategy. It was essential to ensure that the right conditions were created for people of all ages and backgrounds to be more active more often. The Cabinet Member drew particular attention to the significant work underway with the Football Foundation on the development of a portfolio approach to 3G artificial pitches, which represented a significant opportunity for Rotherham.

 

The Head of Sport explained that the formulation of this Strategy had been long overdue. The last time any formal assessment of sports pitches in the borough had taken place was in 2005. At one point, Rotherham was the only borough in Yorkshire that did not have an up-to-date assessment of its playing pitch stock.

 

The funding of around £24,000 for the Strategy had come via a section 106 developer contribution from a housing development in Dinnington. The developer needed to know how they could supply sports, pitches and facilities in relation to their obligations within that area. However, it was difficult to carry out an accurate analysis just within that locality without considering the wider area and border issues with Sheffield and North Nottinghamshire. The whole borough was now set to benefit from the work done by KKP, alongside the council, in developing the Strategy. 

 

It was explained that the draft Strategy was due to go to Cabinet for approval in April and that once formally adopted, it would be used as an evidence base for shaping future action plans for the development of playing pitch facilities. The Strategy underpinned a number of the council’s key priorities, namely:-

 

·       To enable as many people as possible within the borough to be active, to get creative and to get outdoors more often.

 

·       To create better conditions for residents to be active every day.  Levels of inactivity in the borough had improved but there was still more work to be done.

 

·       To promote better physical and health and wellbeing. Whilst the better sports provision would cater for those that physically play the games, there would also be other roles and opportunities associated with the pitches, such as volunteering, working groundsmen, club secretaries. These roles would also contribute positively to people's mental health and wellbeing.

 

·       To ensure that the borough had the right facilities in the right places and at the right level. The quality of pitch provision had dropped over the years, and the Strategy provided an opportunity to address these quality issues.

 

The Strategy had been produced to be compliant with Sports England’s methodology. The sports covered by the Strategy were football, cricket, Rugby Union, Rugby League, hockey and tennis. It was reported that there was also significant demand for the new sport of padel, for which there was currently no provision within Rotherham. Service was aware of a number of planning applications that had been made by external, private providers who were seeking to improve the padel offer across the borough.

 

The Strategy provided an evaluation of the quality and the quantity of existing pitches,  along with how accessible they were. The use of pitches for both winter and summer sports, which had taken some time. The Strategy also considered population growth, and current participation trends, which would enable the council to forecast future need. This in turn, would support the work of colleagues in Planning in gauging what additional facilities might be needed if the population of a particular community increased.

 

It was reported that the turf quality of many of the borough’s playing pitches had declined and had not kept up with developments in turf technology. The examination of usage rates and usage patterns would enable the council to make sure that the needs of communities and residents in relation to current day standards were being met.

 

The Head of Sport commented that pitches were not used solely for sports of a competitive nature but were also used for a variety of other activities, both organised and ad hoc. Whilst the council owned pitches and sites across the borough, there were many pitches also within the ownership or control of sporting clubs, governing bodies, schools, the voluntary sector and community organisations. The Strategy offered an opportunity to coordinate these different stakeholders associated with playing pitches across the borough.

 

A steering group had been established, which was made up of different partners and sporting bodies, including the council and sport governing bodies. The scope of the geographical area to be considered with the Strategy had also been defined. As Rotherham bordered a number of other local authority areas, clubs were likely to draw in players from Sheffield, Barnsley and Doncaster etc. Players who lived in those neighbouring areas may also come into Rotherham to play. It was reported that there were around 550 football teams across 116 clubs within the borough. An audit had been carried out on the quality of existing pitches using Football Association methodologies and the level of demand for pitches and what sizes were required had also been considered. 

The Head of Sport commented that following the wealth of information gathered in developing the strategy, Members would have the opportunity to support delivery by developing the action plan. Service was keen to work together with Members and local communities to improve the borough’s playing pitch stock.

 

Rachel Stothard, Sport & Physical Activity Manager, continued to provide more detail on the consultation that had taken place with Sport England, sporting  governing bodies, local clubs, schools and education providers. These partners were asked about their aspirations for the future, with increased participation for women and girls’ football being a key message. Since the Women's Euros in 2022, the growth in women and girls’ football in Rotherham had been around about 30-35%. However, it was important to ensure that the right facilities were available to enable women and girls to participate, such as  appropriate changing rooms, toilets, showers etc.

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager confirmed that in pitch assessments, the council’s stock had not scored well, and that work and investment would be required to improve these pitches and to provide more training for grounds maintenance.

The headline findings were highlighted as follows:-

·       Shortfalls were identified across football, particularly for 11 v 11 matches. Future demand was projected to worsen and a clear need for more grass pitches by 2040 had been identified.

 

·       There were currently 7 3G (artificial) pitches in the borough with a shortfall identified of between 9 possibly rising to 13 pitches.

 

·       The was also an identified shortfall in cricket pitches, with an overplay on squares. A couple of cricket sites within the borough had been shut due to “ball strike” assessments noting the distance between the wicket and housing was too short.

 

·       There were enough hockey pitches to cover demand in Rotherham.

 

·       There were 56 tennis courts across the borough with some recent investment from the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) at Rosehill Park and Herringthorpe Valley Park.

 

·       The previously referred to shortfall of courts for the popular new sport of padel was estimated to be around 21 courts. However, there were planning applications in place for some new courts.

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager explained that the 3G Pitch Portfolio Project was an outcome from both the development of the Strategy and the Local Football Facility Plan, which was created and overseen by the Football Foundation and Sheffield and Hallamshire County Football Association. The council would be working with these bodies with the aim to deliver the identified 9-13 3G pitches that were lacking, as part of a portfolio approach. This approach had been taken due to an acknowledgement from The Football Foundation that there had been a significant historic lack of investment in Rotherham. The council Planning department had also suggested to The Football Foundation that an application for Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies could provide a way of match funding the required 3G pitches. This type of portfolio approach had never been done by the Football Foundation and represented a groundbreaking opportunity for Rotherham. There would be significant economies of scale in taking this approach.

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager took Members through the list of possible locations for 3G pitches across the borough, and explained that the following sites had since been taken out of the portfolio due to alternative plans:-

·       Brampton Ellis playing fields.

·       Parkgate FC;

·       Thrybergh Academy;

·       Herringthorpe playing fields; and

·       Swallownest Miners’ Welfare.

There was current uncertainty over whether the preferred site in Dinnington (the area which had originally attracted the section 106 monies that had funded the Strategy) would be Dinnington High School or Dinnington Rugby Club.

It was explained the funding for the 3G pitches would come from a combination of sources. The Football Foundation had indicated that they would fund between 60%-65% of a 3G pitch. The council would be asking partners, schools and organisations to fund the remainder, whilst also submitting applications for Strategic CIL monies for further support. The cost of a 3G pitch could range from between £800,000 to £1.2 million per pitch. Although the Dinnington School 3G pitch would be likely to be cheaper due to it being a re-surface not a new build. The investment in so many at once represented very positive news for Rotherham.

With regard to the next steps, the Sport & Physical Activity Manager explained that the Football Foundation was currently undertaking a desktop survey of sites and further intrusive studies to check that no sites had been affected by historic mining. A separate application to the Football Foundation would have to be made for each pitch and each application would require evidence of community engagement. As a result, there was a lot of community engagement currently going on where Neighbourhood teams and ward Members could help and support. It was hoped that pre-applications to Planning for pitches would be submitted around April/May 2026, with applications for Strategic CIL monies later in 2026.

The Chair invited Members of IPSC to raise questions and queries on the Draft Playing Pitch Strategyand in the ensuing question and answer session the following points were raised:-

 

Councillor Lelliott asked whether an inclusion strategy would sit alongside the Strategy to ensure that the pitches and clubs were open and accessible to all, even when there was a cost associated with use. A lot of families in the borough would struggle to pay the subs for a football team and some facilities were gated, with access limited without payment. Councillor Lelliott commented that there were difficulties in identifying sports coaches who were able to get out into the community to deliver sessions to groups.

 

The Head of Sport explained that for all pitches, community use agreements would be put in place that would set out pricing structures, opening times and sessions etc. The funders would not want to see pitches shut off and access limited to large proportions of the community. The aim would be to increase usage for all, not to have them empty. It could increase vandalism if sites were closed off and inaccessible, The Head of Sport provided the example of pitches at Kiveton which were left open to all and had been very well used. For the 3G pitches, each site would be required to maintain a sinking fund of around £25,000 to cover maintenance costs as these would be higher, the more the sites were used.

 

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager further emphasised that community use was at the heart of these plans. For example, the idea of keeping pitches available for general use once the football season was over (e.g keeping goal posts up in parks) was being explored to ensure that community use was available all year round. Workforce was reported to be a challenge in the sports industry generally, hence the shortage of sports coaches.

 

Councillor Jones commented that a number of the identified 3G sites were within the grounds of PFI schools and that it could be difficult to negotiate with PFI contractors with regard to community use. There was often significant cost involved in any variation of the PFI contracts and provision of caretakers etc.

 

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager responded that the Football Foundation had experience of working with PFI schools and were aware of the potential issues. As a result, the Football Foundation had created a dedicated post for dealing with PFI contracts and this person would work to ensure that where it had been agreed that a percentage of use would be for the community, this was adhered to by the PFI contractor.

 

Councillor Beck congratulated the Sports team for taking the lead on the project and the innovative work with the Football Foundation. Councillor Beck commented that whilst they appreciated the inclusion of Killamarsh Juniors on the list of potential locations for 3G pitches (at page 64 of the Agenda Pack), as it was out of borough, they were of the opinion that Rotherham Strategic CIL monies should not be spent on this site. Councillor Beck queried whether Strategic CIL monies could be spent on those sites which had been marked “Protect” in the report – for example, where replacement surfaces were required. It was clear that keeping up with the ongoing maintenance and operation costs of the sites would be key to the success of this project, which highlighted the importance of the sinking funds. 

 

The Head of Sport explained that a number of schools and clubs had approached the council for a 3G pitch but then realised the high cost and ongoing maintenance commitment involved in running them. The funders were very clear when 3G pitches were placed in school environments that their primary use was to be community access and not to enhance the school curriculum.

 

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager explained that Killamarsh Juniors was not part of the 3G portfolio project but had been included on the list to demonstrate that there were 3G facilities in the south of the borough, as a number of Rotherham children played for that team. It was confirmed that as a condition of funding, the sinking funds referred to for ongoing maintenance of the 3G pitches would have to be held in an external account to protect those funds. With regard to protecting current pitch stock, the Strategy would provide an evidence base to enable the council to approach developers to highlight the sites where section 106 funding could be applied.

 

Councillor Yasseeen queried why a full-scale consultation had not been carried out with wider groups such as “Friends of” groups, Members, local residents and informal users. The Head of Sport responded that KKP, who had undertaken the work to formulate the Strategy, were very experienced in conducting surveys of the pitch facilities and their main focus had been to understand the current pitches in the borough and their quality and use. To complete this, KKP needed to consult with parties who would know the most about current pitch use and liaise with experts on pitch quality. Wider consultation to consider community participation would be carried out as part of future work in preparing the new Moving Rotherham Strategy, in conjunction with colleagues in Public Health and Sport England.

 

Councillor Tinsley BEM asked whether all pitches across the borough had been identified as they were aware of some tennis courts and a football pitch in Maltby that had not been mentioned in the report. Councillor Tinsley BEM also asked whether the Strategic CIL monies would be applied to sites other than 3G football pitches.

 

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager acknowledged that there probably were some sites that had not been picked up in the report but commented that the Strategy would be a living document and could be updated if further sites were revealed. It was confirmed that the Strategic CIL monies would be used solely for the 3G pitches as to broaden its use to wider sports would make the project unmanageable.

 

The Head of Sport further commented that following recent 100% funding of tennis courts in Rosehill Park and Herringthorpe Valley Park, the LTA had approached the council with another tranche of available funding for tennis sites. It was confirmed that a number of sites within Maltby were in consideration for further support and it was hoped that this could be progressed.

 

Councillor Sheppard commended the work on the Strategy as an excellent model for providing improved sporting facilities and bringing external investment into the borough. Councillor Sheppard asked how the Strategy could support existing clubs to access sources of funding that the council would not be able to access.

 

The Sport & Physical Activity Manager responded that part of their specific role was to build on sports development and a number of networks had recently been established (e.g tennis network, cricket network) which met regularly to develop plans for that sport in the borough. The Strategy would open doors for clubs and work on it had pulled together a number of different stakeholders. The Head of Sport further commented that sports were multi-funded and maximising collaboration opportunities would be key in the delivery of the Strategy going forward.

 

Councillor Carter commented that the report had revealed that some council-owned pitches were of poor quality, which was a reflection of historic underinvestment in facilities. What assessment had been carried out on these pitches and was long-term underinvestment considered as a factor that had potentially reduced usage?

 

The Head of Sport explained that the Institute of Groundsmanship had a defined technical assessment that considered the quality of turf by putting a grid down and looking at the percentage of weed, root, germination etc. Officers carried out inspections and would consider visual and anecdotal evidence. Underinvestment would have had some impact on pitches, but it was noted that turf science had also developed hugely within the last 20 years. Local authorities did not have the funds to maintain pitches at a very high standard whilst balancing the demands of community and public use. Investment in further 3G pitches would solve some of the problems with regard to maintenance and longevity.

 

Councillor Allen, on behalf of Councillor Lelliott who had had to leave the meeting early, put forward a suggested additional recommendation requesting further information on inclusion work once delivery of the Strategy was underway.

 

The Head of Sport confirmed that updates on this work could be provided to Members but pointed out that work would be done in stages, with different sites working to different timescales. Service would consider when would be best to provide a further update to Members.

 

The Chair thanked officers for their input and members for the questions asked.

 

Resolved:-

 

1.    That the contents of the Draft Playing Pitch Strategy and presentation be noted;

 

2.    That the proposed Draft Playing Pitch Strategy be endorsed to go forward for Cabinet approval in April 2026; and

 

3.    That it is requested that once the Draft Playing Pitch Strategy has been approved by Cabinet and work is underway on delivery, Service reports back to IPSC on the work done with sporting governing bodies, partners and organisations to ensure that access to pitches is inclusive across the borough and that appropriate community use agreements are in place.

 

(Councillor Sheppard declared a personal interest in Minute No. 54 (Draft Playing Pitch Strategy) on the grounds that they were the former Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member with responsibility for this Service within the last 12 months.)

 

(In relation to the Draft Playing Pitch Strategy, the Chair asked Members to declare any interests they may have in community centres, schools and parish councils and the following interests were declared:-

·       Councillor Lelliott – Brampton Youth Club

·       Councillor Adair – Treeton Community Centre

·       Councillor Ahmed – Governor at Coleridge Road School and Chair of Rotherham Ethnic Minority Alliance

·       Councillor Beck – Governor at Wales High School

·       Councillor Sheppard – Governor at Rawmarsh & Arnold Children’s Centres

·       Councillor Tinsley BEM – Governor at Maltby Academy and Town Councillor at Maltby Town Council.)