In September 2024, the University of Southampton announced the opening of its new £40million Jubilee Sport and Recreation Centre extension. Amongst references to the scale of its new (200+) station fitness suite, studios, squash courts and climbing walls, it made the core point that this extension has been designed with inclusivity at its core. It also points out that the venue features the latest adaptive sport equipment to cater for students, staff and people from the local community – of all abilities.

The Complete University Guide Survey suggested that the higher education sector spent over £350m developing sports facilities between 2016-2018 and confirmed that, over the last decade, institutions including Durham, Warwick, Birmingham, York, Nottingham, Loughborough and Portsmouth had made high profile and substantial investment in new sports venues.

The call to action in the BUCS The Value of University Sport and Physical Activity encourages the sector to increase engagement in sport and physical activity for all students and staff, suggesting that individual HEIs make it an essential part of their strategy. The claims made in respect of the benefits of so doing are that a university’s sport and physical activity (SPA) offer:

• Influences its market position and ‘brand pull’ and how students’ choose the HEIs to which they apply – and the one they subsequently attend.
• Improves transition – to university from school, and ultimate retention as a result of the accelerated friendships and sense of belonging that SPA enables.
• Delivers greater life satisfaction – predicated on the assumption that physically active students are happier and exhibit reduced anxiety and depressive symptoms.
• Enhances academic attainment – the rationale being that graduates who are sports participants gain proportionately more first and upper second-class degrees.
• Employability – the assertion being that students who participate in university sport earn more than non-participants and those taking up sports volunteering roles earning a ‘further premium’.

The BUCS publication notes that at a time when UK universities are under more financial pressure than ever, providing opportunity for sport and physical activity has a relatively low net cost and a high return. It points out that this, can impact a significant proportion of students (plus staff and the local community) and provides the “glue” which helps hold a university together.

The latter statement is one with which it is easy to agree. For a net outlay which is often well below 1% of a university’s overall budget, the positive impact of high-quality sport and physical activity facilities, clubs, services and programmes is unmatched by virtually any other aspect of non-academic student provision.

However, in our experience, it is as important to make the case for student retention than it is to highlight sport and physical activity as a tool for student recruitment, which is perhaps only significant for three of four key institutions.

KKP has supported a number of UK universities to across a range of projects including SPA and facility strategies, feasibilities on new facility developments, staffing reviews, performance measurement and service reviews. Several recent assignments (e.g. Leeds and Bristol) have incorporated detailed benchmarking with comparable HEIs.

Typically, this covers aspects such as overall service quality, size and scale of indoor and outdoor sport and fitness provision, approach to memberships, sports club reach and quality, recreational offer, provision for overseas students and services for disabled students and links with student welfare. We have also, latterly, considered the difference made by the level at which sports directorates are directly represented in the university hierarchy.

The general consensus is that, notwithstanding the trend for improvement in the quality of facilities and service provision, there is still some way to go. University senior managers, SPA directors, student union staff and representatives and others consulted consider the key areas in which the higher education SPA offer still often requires further attention or investment Include:

• Balancing the needs of traditional student sport with those of a more diverse student population, which arguably has an increasingly wider range of health needs.
• Delivery of an improved recreational offer geared to all students, but especially those that do not feel comfortable engaging in the traditional sports club environment.
• Improving how SPA services and university sports clubs attract and retain members and compete with increasing competition.
• The quality of direct communication that SPA directorates can have with the full student and staff body. This is often limited by wider university IT infrastructure challenges which limits the capacity for optimal interaction and presentation of the physical activity offer.
• The linking of SPA management information functions with those of the wider university to enable services to accurately assess the profile of who is participating, in which facility or activity and when. Without this link, performance management can be hindered.
• Doing more to cater effectively for overseas students who account for an increasingly significant proportion of HEI tuition fee income but are still often under-considered when it comes to the wider SPA offer.
• Improved linkages and service provision for students with physical disabilities and mental health challenges. Although this is widely considered to have improved in recent years, demand levels have also risen significantly, and services have not always been sufficiently resourced to cope with this.
• The need for directors of SPA to advocate directly for their service in key university decision-making fora.

Giving university SPA directorates the wherewithal (facilities, staff, systems and operational freedom) to deliver and, at the same time making them more accountable for service breadth and outcomes, is arguably essential to the UK having a vibrant and effective HEI sports system and to ensuring that the full contribution that SPA makes to the quality of the student experience is realised.

David McHendry is managing director at KKP (contact: david.mchendry@kkp.co.uk)

Note: KKP’s university client portfolio includes Bristol, Leeds, Edge Hill, UCLan, Birmingham, Warwick, Manchester, Loughborough, Aberdeen, Royal Holloway, Aston, UC Cork, Robert Gordon, Chester, Sussex, Ulster, Aberystwyth, MMU, Sheffield Hallam, Bournemouth, Glasgow Caledonian and Lincoln.

KKP is online at www.kkp.co.uk

NEWS RELEASE 

ISSUE DATE: 28 November 2024

London Sport commissions KKP to deliver its Playing Field Protection Project

London Sport is working with Sport England to review and tackle issues associated with loss of access to, and the closure of, playing fields in the capital. These facilities are vital to enable various communities to engage in sport and physical activity in London, but some are being lost even where there is clear evidence of demand.

The key issues about which London Sport, Sport England and other stakeholders are concerned include the:

• Strength and capacity of the planning system and Sport England to protect playing fields –loss is still occurring despite valid objections.
• Increasing number of sites categorised as “at risk of closure” and the reduced levels of community access to existing playing field sites.
• Uneven spread of playing field provision in London – which exacerbates the inequalities faced by certain groups in accessing playing field provision.
• Lack of an up-to-date evidence base to help justify playing field protection.

As a consequence, a project has been instigated to improve sector understanding of the challenges and emerging trends impacting playing field access and protection in London – and to lay the necessary evidence foundation to outline potential for future advocacy efforts.

Having attracted strong interest and in the face of strong competition, London Sport has awarded the contract to deliver this vital work to Knight, Kavanagh & Page (KKP). This decision is based on the strength of the Company’s sports consultancy credentials, its track record in playing pitch needs assessments and strategies, its delivery of national facility strategies for a range of sports and its experience delivering mitigation strategies and related planning system expertise.

The primary outcome of the work will be to provide London Sport and partners with the case for, and ideas about how to develop, an appropriate platform from which to effectively protect/support key agencies to protect playing fields across London. This is likely to encompass:

Evidence and data to support advocacy – so that all agencies involved are optimally positioned to ‘make the case’. Underpinning this will be review of existing London playing pitch strategies (PPS), development of an updated audit/database of, plus GIS mapping tools covering, existing playing fields. This is to be accompanied by advice in respect of the development of frameworks/protocols to drive all-agency consistency of data collection, storage and analysis. It should also enable the running of key scenarios to test the impact of site loss/reduction (and conversely the positive value of site improvement).

Advocacy – geared to persuading all parties of the value and importance of local and central government taking a (more) strategic approach to the protection of playing fields by, for example:

• Raising awareness among agencies with an interest in or influence over playing field retention and development – about how playing fields contribute to and enhance people’s lives – and the need to continue to invest in existing playing pitch stock.
• Applying the full range of promotional mechanisms to ensure that the way in which existing playing fields are utilised optimises participation levels.
• Providing guidance about what key agencies can do to resist playing field loss and/or drive restoration.
• Developing improved policy guidance to strengthen the position to protect London’s playing fields.
• Sharing good practice with regard to examples of where and how threatened sites have been ‘saved’.

Advocacy processes – to indicate both political and other components of the case for playing field protection and development needs to be made and be geared to securing the support of high profile, committed, political advocates. This may necessitate:

• Creation of an effective platform/agency/system to optimise collective influence and maximise potential to influence playing field protection (and development) factors.
• Finding the simplest, least complex ways possible in which key London agencies can work effectively together to determine playing field-based need and agree universal core protection processes.
• Improving cross-agency communication and collaboration to ensure that any threats of playing field loss is detected and acted upon as early as possible.
• Ensuring consistency in the way in which playing pitch needs assessments/strategies are produced, data/information is stored, accessed and shared.

In taking on this assignment, KKP brings to the table extensive linked experience.

Chris Donkin – Strategic Lead, Active Environments from London Sport commented ‘we are delighted, with the support of Sport England, to be working with KKP on this project. It put forward a strong case to be our preferred consultant for this assignment and has the best track record delivering comparable and compatible projects.’

Steve Wright, KKP principal consultant and director who will lead the project team commented: ‘KKP is delighted to have been entrusted with this vital work for London at what is a critical time for playing fields in the capital. We shall work closely with London Sport and all the stakeholders in the City to produce a report and recommendations that best address the problems faced’.

Steven Wright is available for interview. Please contact KKP via (0)161 764 7040 or email steve.wright@kkp.co.uk

KKP is online at www.kkp.co.uk