Cost model: Sports halls

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Introduction</FONT></B>Recent press statements indicate that construction output for the leisure sector continues to grow, whereas output for sectors such as commercial, industrial and new private housing is lagging behind. Boosted by lottery funding, the health/leisure sector remains buoyant, and further growth is expected during the next two years.

DETR new orders for private commercial new work (at constant 1990 prices), seasonally adjusted, rose from £1.92bn for February to April 1997 to £2.04bn for the same period in 1998 - a year-on-year increase of 6%. However, specific information on how much the leisure sector has contributed to this continuing growth is unavailable.

A clearer picture emerges from a recent survey carried out by Tarmac. This indicates that the value of leisure projects trebled between 1994 and 1997, to £1.7bn in 1997. This phenomenal growth looks set to continue, as £6.2bn of planning applications for new leisure schemes were lodged in the first nine months of 1997.

This cost model concentrates on the recent expansion of smaller schemes in the sector following the availability of Sports Council lottery funds. Since 1995, 6000 applications have been received by the English Sports Council, and about 40-45% have won awards.

An earlier cost model on leisure centres (5 May 1995, pages 46-53) dealt with larger wet/dry multipurpose public sector schemes. Since then, the market has been moving away from leisure and towards sports, health and fitness schemes. Leisure pools have been replaced by traditional 25m or plunge pools, and fitness, health, aerobic and dance facilities have been given prominence. The emphasis has shifted towards ‘active involvement’ in health and leisure, rather than in ‘watching’ or just ‘being there’. Health and fitness centres, which were previously the sole domain of ‘beautiful people’, are now visited by lots of different types of people, irrespective of their physical shape or condition.

A private sector health and fitness centre will be the subject of a future model. This article examines mainly single-storey sports hall schemes, many of which are instigated by organisations that have little or no experience of the building industry.

The article deals with:

• Overall design criteria
• Sources of advice on lottery funding
• Procurement
• Planning criteria and costs of associated functions
• Typical construction and fitting-out costs for a standard single-storey sports hall
• Designs and costs for alternative forms of construction/fitting-out
• A typical construction programme.

Common facilities in such schemes include:

• A multisports hall, including badminton, basketball, five-a-side football, hockey, netball, volleyball, short-mat bowls, tennis and cricket practice nets
• Changing rooms, showers, toilets, locker rooms, plant, storage and reception/cafeteria and administration areas
• Other ‘dry’ facilities such as fitness training rooms, dance/aerobic studios, and gymnastic and martial arts rooms.

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Design criteria</FONT></B>Key design criteria for sports buildings can be found in Sports Council guidance notes and its design handbooks. Further information is also available from the main governing bodies for individual sports.
Standard playing areas exist for most sports, but some vary according to playing levels - whether they are at national, county or club/recreational level.

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Design trends</FONT></B>Design for sports halls is evolving constantly. The following are currently in favour:

• Welcoming foyers, a social hub with cafeteria facilities for early arrivals and to increase secondary spend
• Internal faces of external walls to be in one plane and in one colour, with a reflectance value of 50-60%
• Structural frame grids and light positions situated between badminton courts
• Possibly curved steel roofs with aluminium standing-seam cladding, presenting a less ‘industrial’ appearance, in lieu of portal frames and plastic-coated steel
• Avoidance of natural lighting in multipurpose halls
• Acceptance of rooflights for indoor tennis halls
• Suspended ceilings are usually inappropriate, especially where they are likely to be damaged
• For disabled users, access and facilities in accordance with Part M of the Building

Regulations 1991. This means:

• Doors at least 1m wide
• Ramps and handrails at all changes of floor levels
• Automatic entrance doors
• Storage provision for pushchairs and so on.
• Changing and toilet areas fully tiled throughout, with non-slip floor tiles and rooflights for natural lighting
• Timbers in changing rooms to be light coloured, such as beech, to appear clean and light
• Avoidance of lockers in corridors
• Using high-frequency or compact fluorescent lights as artificial lighting to sports halls instead of sodium or metal halide lamps

The Sports Council is currently producing a new edition of its Guidance Note on Sports Hall Designs.

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Lottery funding</FONT></B>A special lottery sports fund unit of the Sports Council deals with capital sports facilities awards. An application pack is available with advice on how to make a considered application for a lottery award.

Since lottery funds first became available, applications have snowballed, outstripping available funds. The Sports Council has introduced rigorous procedures to ensure that funding goes only to schemes that demonstrate a real increase in sports participation or improved performance, and that are well planned and financially sound. Different initiatives exist to provide awards up to the following figures, with upper limits of funding subject to further matching funding being unavailable:

• Basic award up to 65% maximum
• School Community Sports Initiative award up to 80% maximum
• Priority Areas Initiative award: generally for inner cities, up to 90% maximum.

Sixty percent of all applications received are for projects costing less than £100,000. However, for larger projects (worth more than £250,000), the Sports Council recommends that professional advisers be appointed. It also requires that a proper business case be prepared, demonstrating the need, community use, viability, funding, cost effectiveness, value for money and income and expenditure for the first five years of any proposed project.

The Sports Council’s priorities for successful applications include:

• A proven case for local need and community benefit
• An expansion of ‘real’ sporting facilities, in preference to other high-revenue producers, that is, ‘leisure’ facilities or ideas associated with urban regeneration factors
• Schemes that meet Sports Council internal design standards
• Certainty of cost
• Certainty of quality (and durability)
• Schemes that are most likely to meet numbers of customers and revenue predictions
• Schemes that have architectural merit.

Advice on eligible, non-eligible, high and low priority projects is also given in the application pack. Project costs must be based on out-turn costs, taking account of future increases, fees and client on-costs. They must also include VAT if the applicant is unable to recover it. Contracts in excess of £3.4m must be advertised in the European Union’s Official Journal.

Feedback from some organisations applying for lottery funds indicates that:

• Many applications are initially overly optimistic with regard to timescales. Preparation and consultation periods can exceed original targets by a factor of two or three
• Lottery-supported schemes can result in existing clubs eventually operating in fundamentally different ways. To qualify for a grant, organisations must provide evidence not only of need, but of real benefit to the local community, by way of greater access, free coaching, links with local schools and so on
• Obtaining matching funding is never easy, and a number of applicants fall at this hurdle. A contribution or financial commitment from a governing body associated with a particular sport is almost essential. Other possible avenues of funding could be local authorities, county associations and regeneration grants from the European Union
• Making an application for a grant requires that applicants fully explore the viability of their current operations. They may have to develop associated revenue-producing facilities, for example, fitness facilities in order to subsidise a prime facility such as tennis.

Seeking advice and assistance from construction professionals is likely to increase the chances of a successful application. However, not all organisations can afford to put this money up front, only to have their applications rejected.

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Procurement</FONT></B>Traditional and design-and-build procurement routes are more common than construction management, because of the smaller project sizes. Two-stage tenders with a guaranteed maximum price are also quite popular. However, without proper professional advice, the uninitiated may have problems understanding the plethora of design and procurement options available to them.Design and build can be successful if the employer’s requirements are well prepared. However, material selection is all too frequently left in the hands of contractors working to tight budgets. This results in specifications being reduced to unacceptable levels. For this reason, the Sports Council has recently amended its guidelines to discourage the use of design and build and encourage applicants to follow a more traditional route (Building for Leisure, May/June, page 5), in order to ensure greater certainty of product.
Unless well managed, both construction management and two-stage GMP contracts can suffer from poor cost certainty at the ‘commitment’ stage. Combined with incomplete designs, this can result in adverse risk exposure of lottery funds, a situation the Sports Council strives to avoid.

<B><FONT SIZE=”+2”>Cost model</FONT></B>The cost model is based on a standard design for a small sports hall scheme (no.3 in the Sports Council’s guide, reference 0306 Small Sports Halls - A Value for Money Approach to Design, 1994). A single-storey sports hall of about 36 x 30m (1200m2) has been costed at July 1998 prices, assuming a greenfield site licated in the South-east.

In constructing the model, DLE has separated external structure (shell/envelope) costs from fit-out costs, which include divisions, finishes, services and special equiopment. the aim is to provide readers with a primary shell model that can accommodate an assortment of alternative facilities. There is also a schedule of alternative specifications for both the primary shell model and key specifications within facility types.