Decision-making guide

This guide will assist facility planners in determining the need for, and feasibility of community sport and recreation services. The model in this guide can also be structured to apply to program based solutions.

The model is separated into two stages. Stage One – Intelligence Gathering consists of a decision-making tree to guide the collation and interpretation of data as part of a needs assessment process. 

It is a 13-step process, complete with guidelines on how to identify gather and analyse data.

Stage two is a sustainability matrix developed to assess the feasibility of facilities and programs. This stage consists of 52 criteria, which are grouped into nine weighted categories. Weighting guidelines have been developed, though communities may choose to use a number of consensus building techniques to alter these so that they reflect local values. Each criterion is rated on a scale of 1 to 4, with the highest score providing the most benefit.

The model is designed in such a way that it can be entered at any point in the planning process. It has also been developed so it can be used by planners or user groups with a range of skills and experiences.

While guidelines have been prepared to assist in both stages, incomplete data still enables the user to gauge the need for, or feasibility of, community facilities and services. The more complete the intelligence gathering process the more robust the assessment.

In addition to guiding need and feasibility related decisions, the model can also be used to assess the functionality of existing facilities and programs, and if necessary provide rationale for their disposal or termination. Stage Two can also be used to compare the cost and benefits between alternative types of facilities (e.g. when determining budget priorities) or to determine the most suitable location for a new facility or program.

It is proposed that the model will be further developed to include a web-based interface. It is anticipated that the model will evolve over time as users test and refine its relevance to different circumstances.

A full application of the model, based on a complete intelligence gathering and interpretation process will make the planning process more robust. In using this model, however, it is important to understand that it is a guide only.

This decision-making tool was prepared by CCS Strategic Management in association with Geografia at the request of the Department of Sport and Recreation. Copyright and intellectual property rests with the Department.

A project control group including local government representatives oversaw the project.

Disclaimer

This recourse contains comments of a general nature only and is not intended to be relied upon as a substitute for professional advice. No responsibility will be accepted by the Department of Sport and Recreation for loss occasioned to any person doing anything as a result of any material in this resource.

This booklet was prepared with a view to outlining the Department of Sport and Recreations' requirements for decision making. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed herein are guidelines only and should not be expressly relied on by project proponents.

Preface

This decision making tool has been prepared to assist in determining the need for, and feasibility of, community and recreation services. While the model is predominately to be used for facility planning, it has been structured so that it can also be applied to program based solutions.

The model is separated into two stages. Stage One - Intelligence Gathering consists of a decision-making tree to guide the collation and interpretation of data as part of a needs assessment process. It is a 13 step process complete with guidelines on how to identify gather and analyse data.

Stage Two is a sustainability matrix developed to assess the feasibility of facilities and programs. This stage consists of 52 criteria, which are grouped into nine weighted categories. Weighting guidelines have been developed, though communities may choose to use a number of consensus building techniques to alter these so that they reflect local values. Each criterion is rated on a scale of 1 to 4, with the highest score providing the most benefit.

The model is designed in such a way that it can be entered at any point in the planning process. It has also been developed so that it can be used by planners or user groups with a range of skills and experiences. While guidelines have been prepared to assist in both stages, incomplete data still enables the user to gauge the need for, or feasibility of, community facilities and services. The more complete the intelligence gathering process the more robust the assessment.

In addition to guiding need and feasibility related decisions, the model can also be used to assess the functionality of existing facilities and programs, and if necessary provide rationale for their disposal or termination. Stage Two can also be used to compare the cost and benefits between alternative types of facilities (e.g. when determining budget priorities) or to determine the most suitable location for a new facility or program.

It is proposed that the model will be further developed to include a web based interface. It is anticipated that the model will evolve over time as users test and refine its relevance to different circumstances.

A full application of the model, based on a complete intelligence gathering and interpretation process will make the planning process more robust. In using this model, however, it is important to understand that it is a guide only.

This decision making tool was prepared by CCS Strategic Management in association with Geografia at the request of the Department of Sport and Recreation. Copyright and intellectual property rests with the Department.

A project control group including local government representatives oversaw the project.

Stage One — Intelligence Gathering Flow Chart

A flowchart designed to gather information

Stage One - Intelligence Gathering Guidelines

1. Project scoping

When commencing a facility or program planning exercise, it is important to determine the scope of the project to ascertain key objectives, milestones, and data gathering activities. The scope may take the format of a project brief or tender document and will set out the philosophies and imperatives that underpin the investigation.

In determining the scope, the proponent may ask the following questions:

  • Why are we carrying out a review/feasibility study/needs assessment?
  • Is the study to be conducted in-house or will it be outsourced?
  • Do we have sufficient resources to carry out the study?
  • Who are the major stakeholders?
  • What are the study's aims?
  • What data do we currently have, and what data do we need?
  • What is the proposed methodology?
  • How is the project to be managed?
  • What are the proposed timelines?
  • What is our communications strategy?
  • What approvals are necessary?

2. Determining the facility/program catchment/study area

Determining the catchment of a facility/program or the study area of a needs assessment investigation is an important phase of the data collection process. The catchment of a facility or program will vary depending on its size and function. The study area will vary according to the scope of the planning exercise being undertaken.

At times the two will overlap. If, for example, you are exploring the need and feasibility for a proposal that has been mooted from the community, user groups or as part of the political process, the catchment of the proposed facility or program may be one and the same.

On the other hand, if as a local or state government agency, you are seeking to establish need within a clearly defined area (e.g. a municipal boundary), then the study area is determined through the scoping phase. It is, however, important to understand that administrative boundaries do not necessarily influence the patronage patterns of facilities or programs. Consideration, therefore, should also be given to facilities and programs in neighbouring municipalities.

There are a number ways to determine the catchment of a facility or program. The simplest is based on a radii distance from a facility or program outlet. These radii will vary depending on the facility.

Some guidelines are provided below:

  • Local Facility (local community hall, small park) - 1 kilometre (10 minute walk, 5 minute drive, 10 minutes on public transport)
  • District Facility (multi-use sport facility) - 1-5 kilometres (10-15 minute drive, 20 minutes on public transport)
  • Regional Facility (major competition venue) - in excess of 5 kilometres (15-20 minutes drive, 20-30 minutes on public transport)
Clearly regional facilities in country WA will exceed this guideline.

While circular catchment analysis is a useful starting point, it does not take into account major barriers (e.g. rivers, major roads), accessibility (e.g. road networks, public transport options) or population densities (see Standards Based Gap Analysis Guidelines). The diagram below provides an example of how these factors may influence the catchment of a facility.

Note: Even though some areas are within the 5km catchment of facilities, physical barriers restrict their accessibility. As a result they become part of those areas in which there is a potential provision gap (see coloured areas above).
An alternative approach to measuring catchments may be through a 'ped-shed' analysis, which involves determining accessibility distances based on transport and pedestrian routes. Geographic Information Systems can be of assistance.

Auditing existing facilities and programs

Once the study or catchment area has been determined (as outlined in Section 2), it is essential that the status quo is defined. An audit of all relevant existing facilities in the area is appropriate.

What information do you need to collect?

Ideally as much information as possible! Make sure that you also collect data on school and private facilities.

For facilities the following information is recommended to be collected and stored in a readily accessible data base for all existing facilities. This data file represents an asset register, condition report and utilisation record for the facility.

  • Facility name
  • Address
  • Assessment number
  • Reserve number
  • Ownership or vesting
  • Certificate of Title, folio volume, vesting order including date or order or acquisition
  • Management responsibility
  • Contact person
  • Utilisation pattern by season and day
  • Booking form
  • Tenancy arrangements
  • Hire fees and charges
  • Site plan
  • Aerial photograph of the site
  • Floor plan of the building(s)
  • Photographs of the amenities on site
  • Building capabilities in terms of power, equipment, furniture, storage, etc
  • Parking accommodation
  • Transport linkages and connections
  • A summary of the building condition, recent works and required improvements

For programs that are not facility specific the nature of the program, location(s), frequency, fees and participant data should be collated.

The key elements for analysis related to planning for new facilities or programs are the location, capacity and condition of the existing services.

Where do you find this information?

Council records are generally the best source, however, they are rarely in a single data file, location or format. Usually it is necessary to gather and compile the necessary information for your own analysis. For facilities a site inspection is essential, during which a photographic record can be taken for future reference. This site visit also allows for a current inspection of the facility condition and its suitability for future use, modification or removal.

For programs, auditors ought discuss the program with providers and attend sessions if possible. Note that at the time this model was developed the Department of Sport and Recreation was in the process of developing a Facilities Mapping System to establish a metropolitan facilities database.

How do you interpret and use this information?

The following questions should be asked for each of the existing facilities and programs:

  • How well does this existing facility or program serve the current location / catchment population?
  • What capacity does the existing facility have to accommodate additional use?
  • Can the existing facility be refurbished, retrofitted or extended to accommodate the anticipated need? What is the comparative cost?
or
  • Can the existing program be expanded or remodelled to cater for the anticipated need?
  • How will this facility/program be affected by the development of another facility/ program to satisfy the anticipated need?
  • Is this facility or program actually required any longer?

Demographic analysis

Demographic analysis allows you to align the planning process to the population you are trying to serve. It can provide insight into the social and economic dynamics of local communities and ensure the proposed facility or program is suited to the targeted user groups.

Where do you find this information?

Demographic data can be obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) website free of charge or for a nominal fee. While basic demographic data is regularly updated, detailed information is only available for Census years (1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006).

This data is available at a variety of geographic scales. The basic unit is a Census Collection District or CCD. Amalgamated data sets can be acquired at postcode, suburb, local government, regional, state and national levels. Talk to ABS staff for additional advice.

As a facility or program planner you will also need to consider population change (growth/decline) and future demographic profiles. The most appropriate data source for this information is the WA Department for Planning and Infrastructure population forecasts, called Western Australia Tomorrow. This can be downloaded from Planning Western Australia. This information can be used as the basis for understanding population growth (and by implication, demand for facilities) and to estimate likely age profile changes.

What information do you need to collect?

Census data contains a range of valuable information. Data likely to have an influence on the provision of community and recreation facilities and services include:

  • population density
  • total population
  • population change
  • age structure
  • income profiles
  • household structure
  • marital status
  • gender ratios
  • ethnicity
  • travel to work patterns
  • full time, part-time and unemployment ratio's
  • employment position
  • occupation.

We recommend that, as a minimum, you attain data for two Census years at a local government or suburb level to view changes over time. When analysing this data it is important that you compare suburb or LGA data to state, national or regional averages to see local variation.

How do you interpret and use this information?

There are a number of ways and software tools available to analyse and interpret Census data including tables, Excel graphs and the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

Prior to commencing your data analysis it is important that you convert it to a format that can compare geographic scales (e.g. state to local government areas).

For example, if comparing age profiles for the 1996 and 2001 Census for a local government area to state averages, each cohort needs to be converted to a percentage of the total (see tables below for the 'Shire of Westralia').

Table 1 - Population distribution by age - WA and Westralia
Age Cohort WA Westralia 2001 Westralia 1996
0-4 years 122709 93 69
5-9 years 132617 90 71
10-14 years 137350 50 64
15-19 years 136279 23 27
20-24 years 123993 28 54
25-29 years 127795 57 76
30-34 years 137773 86 78
35-39 years 141556 82 63
40-44 years 142854 62 64
45-49 years 133403 60 76
50-54 years 123976 77 48
55-59 years 92203 59 47
60-64 years 74824 45 42
65-69 years 60406 50 34
70-74 years 53538 30 30
75-79 years 41646 21 27
80-84 years 26127 20 20
85-89 years 15330 20 9
90 years and over 7629 6 6
Total 1832008 959 905

Data Converted to Percentages for Comparative Purposes

Table 2 - percentage of population distribution by age - WA and Westralia
Age cohort WA 2001 Westralia 2001 Westralia 1996
0-4 years 6.70 9.70 7.62
5-9 years 7.24 9.38 7.85
10-14 years 7.50 5.21 7.07
15-19 years 7.44 2.40 2.98
20-24 years 6.77 2.92 5.97
25-29 years 6.98 5.94 8.40
30-34 years 7.52 8.97 8.62
35-39 years 7.73 8.55 6.96
40-44 years 7.80 6.47 7.07
45-49 years 7.28 6.26 8.40
50-54 years 6.77 8.03 5.30
55-59 years 5.03 6.15 5.19
60-64 years 4.08 4.69 4.64
65-69 years 3.30 5.21 3.76
70-74 years 2.92 3.13 3.31
75-79 years 2.27 2.19 2.98
80-84 years 1.43 2.09 2.21
85-89 years 0.84 2.09 0.99
90 years and over 0.42 0.63 0.66
Total 100.00 100.00 100.00
Comparative age demographic

As an indicator of temporal changes, graphs comparing raw data between censuses are a useful device. Population pyramids comparing gender distribution are also recommended.

Analysis using GIS software can also be used to determine demographic clusters. One method that can be applied is to calculate the ratio within data sets (e.g. ratio of under 30s to over 30s) for each CCD. Most GIS software can interpolate these ratios across a geographical area to produce a map that highlights concentrations of various demographic indicators (see map below produced by MapInfo).Population map showing percentage of  youth and elderly

If, for example, you were making decisions about the location of a youth facility, preference would be given to lighter shaded areas.

5. Normative participation user data

It is important to know the average participation rates, frequency of participation and the characteristics of the participants most likely to use the facilities or services you will provide.

What information do you need to collect?

  • Average participation rate as a percentage of population
  • Participation frequency in terms of number of times per year
  • Age characteristics of the participants
  • Income characteristics of the participants
  • Education characteristics of the participants
  • Family status of the participants

Where do you find this information?

  • Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS) - an annual survey of the physical activity patterns of adult Australians (15+)
  •  The Numbers Game - a snapshot of participant characteristics in 41 of the most recognised active leisure pursuits in Australia
  • An over view of participation influences for children can be found in an ABS study paper
  • The most recent children's participation data is available from the ABS publication Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities Catalogue no. 4901.0.

How do you interpret and use this information?

  1. Review the Numbers Game commentary for the activities you are seeking to accommodate
  2. Review the ERASS data in terms of participation numbers (per cent of population) and participation frequency for the activities you are seeking to accommodate
  3. Review the children's participation data for the activities you are seeking to accommodate
  4. Assess the participant characteristics described in the Numbers Game, ERASSS and ABS Cat 4901.0 against your catchment population to determine ‘fit'
  5. Extrapolate the likely participation rates in your catchment population based on normative rates
  6. Document variations to expected participation rates for your catchment population using local knowledge related to trends and the current status in social, cultural and environmental factors

6. Local participation/user data

What information do you need to collect?

  • Current number of participants in the catchment zone by club, association or affiliation
  • Participant numbers over the past 3 (preferably 5) seasons or years
  • Breakdown of participants by age and gender
  •  Projected participation numbers based on:
    • higher levels of participation due to new or improved facilities or programs
    • changes to population numbers in the catchment area
    • changes to normative participation rates (trends)
    • changes to local participation rates (trends)
  • Participation frequency and current utilisation patterns (e.g. training and competition schedules, see example below)

Notes: pax this is the average number of participants involved in the activity on this day #wks this is the number of weeks that this activity operates for each year

Daily participation rates of organisations

Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
Organisation pax #wks pax #wks pax #wks pax #wks pax #wks pax #wks pax #wks Total
Bowling Club

25 15 15 25 30 26

25 15 20 12 2145
Cricket Club 1

12 19



14 19

12 19 722
Cricket Club 2



10 10

15 15 15 20

625
Cricket Club 3





15 20 15 24 12 24

948
Football Club

40 20

40 20

22 8 22 8 1952
Circuit Classes 15 40 15 40 15 40 15 40 9 40 25 40

3760
Guides & Brownies

20 60



20 2 20 2

1280
Ballet & Ballroom



10 40

8 35



680
Golf Club

8 20

12 35

40 26 40 26 2540
Golf Club - ladies



13 26



10 26

598
Hockey Club









22 15

330
Netball Club







20 18 12 18

576
Family Playgroup








8 37


296
Tennis Club









20 10 30 26 980
Swimming Club 12 15 12 15

12 15



15 10 690
Total 27
132
63
124
109
223
139
18122

Where do you find this information?

  • Clubs and Associations for whom the proposed facility/program is being investigated
  • Clubs and Associations accommodated in other facilities/programs within the catchment zone
  • Clubs and Associations accommodated in other facilities/programs adjacent to the catchment zone
  • Local authority booking schedules
  • State Sporting Associations
Note that this information is often not available or only available in non-compatible formats. You will need to allow time for sourcing information by interview and/or survey and then its collation and analysis.

How do you interpret and use this information?

  1. Compare local participation data against normative participation levels (see section 5)
  2. Compare local participation data for the organisations being considered as users of the proposed facility against those in adjacent areas
  3. Consolidate the participation numbers and user frequency by analysis of local and normative data against anticipated growth or trends

7. Standards based gap analysis

The provision of facilities and programs according to a set standard, or simply because the neighbouring locality has one, is not advocated.

It is, however, useful to gain an insight as to whether the facility or program you are considering will fill a gap in provision, strengthen an existing level of provision or push this and existing facilities/ programs into competition or oversupply.

Similar to the catchment analysis in Section 2, this exercise seeks to address the appropriate level of provision, but this time on a per capita, or standards basis.

What information do you need to collect?

  • The initial data gathering exercise relates to establishing the status quo. This would have been done in Section 3 when you conducted an audit of existing facilities and programs.
  • The second phase relates to establishing a suitable standard against which you are going to make an assessment. The standard that you adopt will depend upon your individual circumstances and be influenced by catchment area, catchment population and other demographic and sociographic influences.

Where do you find this information?

Generally this information is somewhat difficult to come by and exists in a variety of locations. Some standards can be developed locally. Others are simply a mathematical assessment making use of the most reliable data available. Normative participation standards and locally captured participation standards are described in Sections 5 and 6. These provide the best means of establishing a reference or standard.

How do you interpret and use this information?

Analysis of local, neighbourhood and district parks
Park type Average items play equip or furniture per park Under serviced Adequately serviced Over serviced
Local 2.89 Less than 3 3 4 or more
Neighbourhood 8.07 Less than 6 7 to 9 10 or more
District 17.80 Less than 15 15 to 19 20 or more
Note that this table records the level of existing provision which is not necessarily an indication of what may currently be required and certainly does not indicate future provision needs.

The second example is taken from work done by the North Metropolitan Region Recreation Advisory Committee (NMRRAC) several years ago. In generating this work the member councils of the north metropolitan region collated the number of facilities they had in place by each of the categories below and then interpolated the level of provision for a range of target populations. The figures shown below are for a catchment population of 100,000 although figures also exist for 135,000 and 150,000.

Table 5 - past facility provision levels in the NMRRAC region for a catchment population of 100,000
Sport Facility provision
Facilities
Aquatic
Indoor 25 m 1.61
Indoor 50 m 0.18
Outdoor 25 m 0.18
Outdoor 50 m 0.89
Spa/Sauna 1.43
Water Polo 0.36
School Pool 50m 0.00
School Pool 25m 0.00
Recreational Water Space 1.25
Archery
0.54
Athletics
Dedicated Synthetic 0.00
Dedicated Turf 0.00
Seasonal use 4.64
Australian Rules Football
State level 0.54
Senior 8.57
Junior 11.61
Badminton
Badminton Specific Courts 6.43
Baseball
6.07
Basketball
Indoor Basketball Specific Courts 4.64
Outdoor Basketball Specific Courts 4.46
Beach Volleyball
State Facility 0.18
BMX tracks
5.00
Canoeing/Rowing
Facility 0.18
Cricket
Turf 3.21
Synthetic 23.04
Practice nets 48.21
Croquet
0.36
Cycling
State Indoor Facility 0.18
Outdoor track 0.00
Equestrian
Trotting/Pacing 0.18
Racing 0.00
State level 0.18
Recreational Level Facility 0.71
Gymnasium
Gymnastics - Specialist 0.18
Fitness 1.61
Golf
Municipal 0.89
Private 1.96
Hockey
Synthetic 0.36
Grass 7.68
Lacrosse
0.18
Lawn Bowls
Clubs 4.64
Rinks-synthetic 0.18
Rinks Grass 15.36
Motor Racing
0.18
Multi Use Indoor Courts
1.25
Multi Use Outdoor Courts
0.00
Netball
Indoor Netball Specific Courts 3.57
Outdoor Netball Specific Courts 22.50
Petanque /Boules
0.18
Rugby
State Level 0.54
Club Level 1.96
Rifle Range/Shooting
local venue
State ballistic facility
Skate Parks
3.57
Soccer
International Standard 0.36
State Level 1.07
Club Level 15.54
Modified (Junior level) 3.57
Softball
2.32
Squash Courts
Commercial 4.29
Council 0.00
Surf Life Saving Clubs
1.07
Ten Pin Bowling
Commercial 0.36
Tennis
Clubs 1.25
Grass 31.43
Synthetic 44.46
Note: These standards are an example only and are not necessarily applicable to all localities. These figures do not include facility provision by schools and other institutions.

Using the NMRRAC numbers as a standard against which to compare future provision presumes that the current level of provision is adequate, sustainable and appropriate for the new circumstances. The numbers should not be used in isolation or presumed to be a minimum standard of provision. They do, however, give some indication of what past planning strategies and community expectations have provided.

A third example relates to standards developed from the practice of demand based planning. This example is taken from a presentation delivered by Dr Tony Veal from the University of Technology Sydney to the PLA Annual conference in October 2005.

Here he uses a mix of normative statistical data, locally captured data and guesstimates based on local knowledge to derive a standard of 0.49 Hectares of land set aside for soccer pitches per 1,000 persons.11 steps to determine gross demand

8. Stakeholder and community engagement program

The value of community and stakeholder engagement should not be underestimated when planning facilities or programs. It can provide important insights into community values and views, ensure the plans and facility/program location are in tune with local sentiments and provide important information about the likely use of the facility. It can also act as a community capacity building initiative in its own right. To manage this process it is recommended that you develop a communications strategy as part of the project scoping phase.

The extent of consultation will depend on the nature, size, function and location of the proposed facility or program. The following table provides a consultative guide to the appropriate level and method of consultation for facilities. Programs are less likely to have an impact on the surrounding community, but consultative activities should be considered. Thought should also be given to special interest and special needs groups, e.g. indigenous, disabled, seniors, youth and people from non-English speaking backgrounds.

Examples of stakeholder and community engagement
Facility Type Recommended Minimum Consultation Activities
Local Facility
  • Workshops (1-2) with user groups
  • Survey of surrounding residents (800 metres)
  • Preliminary discussions with potential partners and financial contributors
  • Advertisements in local newspapers and on local council web site seeking comment of draft plans
District Facility
  • Workshops (3-4) with user groups and other stakeholders
  • Survey of potential user groups
  • Survey of a sample of the catchment population
  • Preliminary discussions with potential partners and financial contributors
  • Establishment of a (community) reference group
  • Advertisements in local newspapers and on local council web site seeking comment of draft plans
Regional Facility
  • Workshops (4-6) with user groups and other stakeholders
  • Discussions with surrounding local authority representatives
  • Preliminary discussions with potential partners and financial contributors
  • Survey of potential user groups
  • Survey of a sample of the catchment population
  • Establishment of a (community) reference group
  • Advertisements in local newspapers and on local council web site seeking comment of draft plans
  • Open day
State Facility
  • One-on-one meetings with key stakeholders
  • Workshops (6-10) with user groups and other stakeholders
  • Survey of potential user groups
  • Survey of a sample of the catchment population
  • Detailed discussions with potential partners and financial contributors
  • Establishment of a stakeholder reference group
  • Advertisements in state and local newspapers seeking comment on draft concept plans
  • Open days
Locality based needs assessment
  • 10-15 one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders
  • Workshops (4-6) with user groups and other stakeholders
  • Survey of potential user groups
  • Survey of a sample of the catchment population
  • Preliminary discussions with potential partners and financial contributors
  • Establishment of a (community) reference group
  • Advertisements in local newspapers and on local council web site seeking comment of draft plans
  • Open days

One-on-one meetings

One-on-one meetings are a useful consultation device. Best conducted earlier in the planning process, they provide the opportunity to gain candid insights from stakeholders. Meetings would usually be focused on a set of themed questions.

Discussions with potential partners and financial contributors

It is highly recommended that as part of the stakeholder consultation process, facility planners and proponents have preliminary discussions with potential financial contributors or partners. This might include funding agencies (e.g. LotteryWest, Department of Sport and Recreation), neighbouring local authorities, land developers, principal user groups and potential tenants.

Workshops

Facilitated workshops are a useful means for community and stakeholder input. It is recommended that workshops include a brief presentation on key issues (e.g. demographic profiles, participation rates, location of existing facilities). The workshop participants should then be broken into groups and given specific tasks (such as discussing facility or program needs, developing ideas for the vision for the locality/facility/program etc) and then report back to the group as a whole. Themed workshops may be one way to manage a large number of stakeholders.

Surveys

Mail-out or telephone based surveys of residents and users groups is an excellent source of information and means of gauging community opinion. Usually two sample sets are required (one for user groups, another for residents).
In the case of user groups it is recommended that the following minimum information is attained:

  • Current membership numbers
  • Future membership number projections (with justification of numbers)
  • Membership by suburb
  • Frequency and time of use of facilities
  • Views on the adequacy of existing facilities
  • Current membership and participation fees and charges
The nature of the questions asked to the wider community will depend on whether you are assessing need for a particular proposal or the generic needs of a locality. A stratified (but random) sample is usually recommended that takes into account the study area/catchment population profile.

Reference group

A community or stakeholder reference group can provide a refined format for public input whereby the group meets on an ongoing basis. They usually act in an advisory capacity without decision making authority. Each meeting should be well structured, with a clear logic between meetings. Members should be provided with background information to assist them to provide meaningful input.

Advertisements and open days

Once a draft concept plan has been prepared, it should be placed in a publicly available display area and advertised for community comment. Time should be made available for members of the community to meet and discuss plans with representatives of the facility's proponents.

Note that other guidelines relating to community engagement are available from the Citizens and Civics Office of the Department of Premier and Cabinet. A wide range of consultation and engagement processes and strategies are covered in their publications. They can be accessed via this link:

9. Justifying need

  • Are there real provision gaps in the study area?
  • Does the audit indicate existing facilities and programs will not meet the demands of the population?
  • Is the population profile suited to the nature of the proposed facility or program?
  • Do local participation rates and population forecasts suggest that existing facilities/ programs are inadequate?
  • Does the comparison of population to standards indicate an under supply?
  • Does the proposal have the general support of the local community?
If at the end of this analysis you have answered NO to one or more of the questions, you should exit the model. Your choices then are to terminate the project on the basis of no need, or re-evaluate the scope of the project and run the model again.

10. Policy review

Policies can be defined as overarching documents, procedures or plans that will have either a legislative or governance influence on the facility/ program planning process. They can also be an important source of additional information.

At a minimum it is recommended that you review the following:

  • Relevant State acts and other legislation
  • Local government Act 1995
  • Planning and Development Act 2005/2006
  • Local government policies and corporate strategic plans
  • Local government principal activity plans
  • Management plans affecting the catchment area
  • Structure plans affecting the catchment area
  • Existing facility strategic plans (local or regional)
  • State Sporting Association strategic plans
  • DSR's SD4 and other strategic documents
  • Needs Analysis Guide
  • Feasibility Study Guides
  • DSR's Asset Management Guide
  • DSR's Life Cycle Cost Guidelines
  • WA State Sustainability Strategy
  • State Planning Strategy
  • Network City
  • Liveable Neighbourhoods
  • Bush Forever
  • Coastal Planning and Management Manual
  • Development Control Policies
  • Native Title Act 1999
  • Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972
  • Individual user groups strategic plans
The review should include the development of a brief synopsis of each document, with some indication of how the proposed facility or perceived need complies with, or is compromised by, the Act or policy.

11. Solution analysis

Satisfying the need identified and justified in stages 1 through 9 of the model may be approached from a number of perspectives. The best solution may well be non-asset based, meaning that it is not necessary to go about building a new facility. Rather, the need may be met by offering a service or program in the user's environment or from an existing facility. Refer to the Department of Sport and Recreation's Asset Management Guide for further assistance in this area available at the Department of Sport and Recreation

An asset based solution may also not require the development of a new building. Potential solutions could include use of an existing building in which there is capacity to accommodate the need, retrofitting of an existing facility to enable the need to be properly accommodated, expansion of an existing facility to accommodate the need or ultimately, and probably as a last resort, the construction of a new purpose built facility to accommodate the need. Note that facility solutions should also consider use of an existing school or commercial facility.

It is recommended that all potential solutions are identified in this stage and evaluated using the sustainability matrix in stage 2. This process will help determine the most suitable solution to the need. It will also answer any questions from external parties who may have a particular view on which way the need should be addressed, potentially without any substantial information to validate their view.

For non-asset based solutions the investigations in this stage relate to who will deliver the service or offer the program, how, when and where. They become issues of resource logistics rather than facility development requirements.

For asset based solutions, regardless of whether a facility is to be new, retrofi tted or extended the determination of location is an essential step and one of the more complex and contentious tasks in the facility planning process. To maximise the accessibility of facilities/programs they should ideally be located equal distance apart, in a hierarchical structure with well connected road and public transport systems.

Regional, district and local facility model showing a geometric pattern of spacing.

Even though some policies recommend this approach to urban planning (e.g. Liveable Neighbourhoods) there are a multitude of other factors influencing land development patterns (e.g. topography, land ownership, historical land use, differences in demographic profiles etc). As a result, locational decisions become more complex.

A useful starting point is a catchment analysis. Taking into account accessibility constraints and opportunities (e.g. public transport, road and natural barriers - see figure in Section 2), identify the catchments of existing facilities/programs and earmark provision gaps. This will narrow the location to a general region. Note that local government boundaries should be excluded from consideration in this stage.

Once identified, a series of other criteria need to be assessed. These should include:

  • Land ownership
  • Relationship to nearby facilities and programs
  • Integration with the surrounding urban fabric
  • Access by public transport
  • Demographic clusters (e.g. high concentrations of youth or aged)
  • Population density in the immediate surrounds
  • Potential for shared use (e.g. school, TAFE, University)
  • Visibility and exposure
  • Orientation constraints
  • Cost implications (e.g. site conditions) of each location
  • Extent to which the facility or program location meets the objectives of Network City
  • Extent to which the facility or program location promotes the principles of Liveable Neighbourhoods
  • Views of the nearby residents and businesses
Geographic Information Systems software analysis can be used to assist in this process.

As well as comparing the feasibility of facilities, the Stage Two Sustainability Matrix can also be used to assess the benefits of one location over another by taking into account design, policy, funding, environmental and accessibility variations.

12. Concept design

It is essential to develop a conceptual design for each potential solution, at least in schematic form as early as possible in the process. It is not necessary to move past the schematic stage at this point but elements and their relationship to one another and the surrounding environment should be roughly agreed. This information will be useful when you do engage an architect or designer.

Alternatively, at this point you may consider developing a program concept. At minimum this should consist of a statement of intent, target audience, equipment requirements, space requirements, staffing needs, frequency and an outline of the program structure.

What information do you need to collect?

  • The components that will comprise your facility/ program, the essential non-negotiable elements
  • The components that may comprise your facility/program based on decisions related to capital cost and longer term operating viability
  • The interrelationship between these elements, essential and potential and the location being considered
  • The size, scale and level of sophistication being considered for each element, e.g. an indoor sports hall may be a basic shed just slightly larger than the largest anticipated sports court, or one that comprises retractable seating, run off space for international events, media accommodation and television level lighting.

Where do you find this information?

For a facility this information is generally generated in-house, potentially by the project steering group, before the engagement of an architect designer. For a multipurpose community centre the process could produce a schematic something like the one shown below: 

 Bubble diagram for facility layout showing different areas of a facility.

Please note that there are a large number of regulations and guidelines to be considered in the development of sport and recreation facilities. Perhaps one of the most important is the actual sports dimensions required for the sport or recreation activity to be accommodated, including the necessary run-off or clear space required around the competition or performance area. Sporting dimensions can be sourced via the following link.
Sports Dimensions for Playing Areas (1998) Archive copy

Other regulations, standards and guidelines will include those related to facility design and construction including the Building Code of Australia, Disability Services Act and the Health Act. The Department of Sport and Recreation's Asset Management guide has a list of relevant legislation and guidelines in Appendix K on page 54 available at The Department of Sport and Recreation.

Even though the specific application of their requirements is not necessary at this schematic stage it is useful to note that there are guidelines and controls which govern facility design and construction.

For an active playing field the NMRRAC models for local and district facilities could be used as a guide to design.An example of a technical diagram produced for a facility in Wanneroo.

How do you interpret and use this information?

Once the general areas and spatial relationships for a facility are achieved a quantity surveyor can provide some (very broad) estimate of costs for the proposed complex based on areas and unit rates. You can also carry out this cost estimate in-house by using Rawlinsons Australian Construction Cost Guide. Ensure that site and service establishment costs are included in the cost estimate together with an allowance for fees, fit-out and escalation, as most projects have an extensive lead time (often in the range of 2-5 years) from concept plan to construction.

13. Cost estimates

What information do you need to collect?

For facilities a quantity surveyor will provide an estimate of the construction and project costs. A useful format for construction costs estimates in the pre-feasibility stage is as follows, shown here for a multi-element facility. Note that the elements can be interpreted as functional spaces such as halls, rooms or pools but must also include circulation space, storage areas and amenity areas:

Land acquisition in year 3 and a build program in the fourth year from the current date with costs escalated at 8 per cent per annum
XYZ Multi element facility cost schedule Escalation Factor @ 8% pa
Element Area (m2) Unit rate $ Current Year Base Cost $ Year 2 1.08 Year 3 1.17 Year 4 1.26 Year 5 1.36
Element 1 150 1450 217,500

273,987
Element 2 200 1600 320,000

403,108
Element 3 1200 950 1,140,000

1,436,072
Element 4 500 2100 1,050,000

1,322,698
Element 5 350 2250 787,500

992,023
Element 6 120 1750 210,000

264,540
Element 7 60 1500 90,000

113,374
Element 8 450 1250 562,500

708,588
Element 9 90 950 85,500

107,705
Circulation 180 1250 225,000

283,435
Storage 250 950 237,500

299,182
Administration 200 1450 290,000

365,316
Total construction cost 5,215,500

6,570,028
Site establishment PS 95,000

119,673
Services establishment PS 195,000

245,644
Roads and carpark PS 325,000

409,406
Furniture and fit-out 469,395

591,303
Landscaping 260,775

328,501
Total ancillary costs 1,345,170

1,694,527
Professional fees 590,460

743,810
Land acquisition requirement 1,400,000
1,632,960

Total Project cost 8,551,130

10,641,325

This table (prepared in Excel) shows land acquisition in year 3 and a build program in the fourth year from the current date with costs escalated at 8 per cent per annum. Both Rawlinsons and Department of Housing and Works publish a building cost index which can be consulted to attain a current escalation rate. Provisional sum allowances are made for unknown items such as site and service establishment at this stage. For programs, quotes for various services and capital costs will need to be sought.

Where do you find this information?

Capital and project costs can be readily obtained from a quantity surveyor. The quantity surveyor should also be able to provide whole of life costs and maintenance estimates which can be fed into an operating cost schedule. Operating costs should also be prepared based on proposed programming, projected participation rates, fee structure and management structure.

Note that the Department of Sport and Recreation provide a useful life cycle costs guidelines publication to assist in cost schedule development available at the Department of Sport and Recreation

How do you interpret and use this information?

The capital and operating cost estimates (Total Project Cost) will provide the proponent with an indication of the overall cost to establish and operate the facility or program. This exercise then leads to element modification, exclusion or reconsideration of the design and the preparation of a funding strategy.

14. Funding sources

Funding strategies for the development of Western Australian sport and recreation facilities have been very strongly influenced by the State Government's CSRFF program. This program can be viewed in detail on the Department of Sport and Recreation's web site the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Generally, the CSRFF strategy allows for up to one third of the project cost to be met by the State Government, one third by the host local authority and one third by the project proponent or user groups. Note, however, that there are restrictions and limitations to the extent of funding offered by the State under this scheme and a full one third contribution to the total project cost is rarely achieved.

Other facilities funding sources include:

  • corporate sponsorship
  • selling of naming rights and other marketing strategies
  • community fundraising
  • professional capital fundraising bodies
  • Donations from philanthropic trusts and foundations
There are many philanthropic organisations who may be interested in supporting your project. Philanthropy Australia (Philanthropy Australia website) has a series of links on its website to most Australian philanthropic organisations. The Australian Philanthropy Directory 2006 is now available and can be purchased for around $75.

An organisation called Our Community (our community) also provides information on grant programs. This is a commercial organisation and there is a small charge for access to detailed information on the site. You may regard the cost as worth paying.

  • Australian Sports Foundation offers assistance via a tax deductible donations scheme and a discretionary grants package. Visit them at The Australian Sports Foundation website
  • Local government reserves
  • Local government loan funds
  • Local government enabled self supporting loans to community groups
  • Department of local government and Regional Development offers a grants directory

Many of the above organisations will also provide funding for programs and services. Healthway are a specialist program funding agency which can be accessed through this link: HealthWay Western Australia

A funding model such as the one below should be prepared for the project.

Funding strategies

Best case scenario
Total project cost 1,854,097 Soccer Cricket Hockey Council CSRFF
Soccer Club





In-kind labour 10,000 10,000



Cash contribution to new clubhouse 20,000 20,000



Cricket Club





In-kind labour 10,000
10,000


Cash contribution to new clubhouse 20,000
20,000


Benefactor donation 25,000
25,000


Hockey Club





In-kind labour 10,000

10,000

Cash contribution to new clubhouse 20,000

20,000

Materials contribution 70,000

70,000

Association Interest Free Loan 150,000

150,000

Corporate sponsorship 60,000

60,000

Commercial loan funds 309,097

309,097

Council





Amenities upgrade (already committed) 250,000


250,000
Vote of funds to 1/3 of project cost 450,000


450,000
CSRFF Grant 450,000



450,000
TOTAL 1,854,097 30,000 55,000 619,097 700,000 450,000
Most likely outcome
Total project cost 1,854,097 Soccer Cricket Hockey Council CSRFF
Soccer Club





In-kind labour 10,000 10,000



Cash contribution to new clubhouse 15,000 15,000



Cricket Club





In-kind labour 15,000
15,000


Cash contribution to new clubhouse 15,000
15,000


Benefactor donation 0
0


Hockey Club





In-kind labour 20,000

20,000

Cash contribution to new clubhouse 120,000

120,000

Materials contribution 40,000

40,000

Association Interest Free Loan 0

0

Corporate sponsorship 50,000

50,000

Commercial loan funds 919,097

919,097

Council





Amenities upgrade (already committed) 250,000


250,000
Vote of funds to 1/3 of project cost 50,000


50,000
CSRFF Grant 350,000



350,000
TOTAL 1,854,097 25,000 30,000 1,149,097 300,000 350,000

This project example shows a multi-purpose sporting facility development proposal being driven by Hockey. Note that the Hockey club proposes the raising of a commercial loan for any funding shortfall associated with the project. The figure for commercial loan funds shown in blue indicates that the best case scenario calls for a loan of $309,097, however, the most likely outcome, or perhaps worst case scenario, calls for that loan to be $919,097. This analysis provides a statement of viability for the project, i.e. if the funding cannot be secured then the project is simply not viable.

Program funds come from a variety of sources including local government grant schemes. Check with your local government authority for assistance given to local clubs. The Department of Sport and Recreation offers a series of program funds including the Sport and Recreation Community Grants Scheme.

Healthway are a specialist program funding agency which can be accessed through this link: HealthWay Western Australia

Stage two - sustainability matrix assessment guidelines

These guidelines provide an overview of the methodology to be applied when completing the sustainability matrix in part 4 of this document

1. Social wellbeing

1.1 To what extent will this facility/program proposal enhance the social wellbeing of the community?

Social wellbeing is a very broad term. Generally it is defined as the degree to which a population's health, education, income, leisure and economic needs and wants are being met. Data gathered during Stage One should guide this assessment.

Rating guidelines

  1. Has a negative effect on social wellbeing
  2. Has little to no positive influence on social wellbeing
  3. Somewhat enhances social wellbeing
  4. Has a significant contribution to social wellbeing

1.2 To what extent will this facility/program add to the sense of community?

Sense of community can be defined as the degree to which people feel part of a wider social network. Indicators may include participation and volunteer rates, facility usage, number of people within an individual's network, feelings of safety and security and levels of trust. Surveys and consultative activities can assist determine these factors.

Rating guidelines

  1. Has a negative effect (i.e. divides the community) on sense of community
  2. Has little to no positive influence on sense of community
  3. Somewhat enhances sense of community
  4. Has a significant contribution to sense of community

1.3 To what extent will this facility/program bring different parts of the community together?

Facilities can act as important meeting points for different parts of the community. Indicators may include the likelihood that the facility will be used by a cross section of the catchment population.

Rating guidelines

  1. Is only likely to be used by a very small section of the community
  2. Use is limited to a select number of groups and individuals
  3. Will be utilised by a reasonably wide section of the community
  4. Will be a vibrant community meeting place catering to all sections of the community

1.4 To what extent will this facility/program cater for all age groups?

Facilities that cater to a wide range of age groups are more sustainable as they: 1) enhance the catchment potential and 2) promote social interaction. In assessing this criterion, consideration should be given to the catchment age profile and the nature of the facility (e.g. seniors centre, skate parks are designed for specific age groups)

Rating guidelines

  1. Is only likely to be used by one age cohort (young children, teenagers, young adults, families, seniors)
  2. Use is limited to two age groups
  3. Will be utilised by at least 3 different age groups
  4. Will be patronised by all age cohorts

1.5 To what extent will this facility/program cater for both genders?

Facilities that cater to both genders are more socially and financially sustainable. While acknowledged that some facilities/programs will have an inherent gender bias, efforts should be made to promote use by both men and women.

Rating guidelines

  1. Will be used 100% by one gender
  2. Will be somewhat inclusive of both genders
  3. Will be predominately used by both genders
  4. Will be patronised equally by both genders

1.6 To what extent will this facility/program address known social issues in the catchment population

As part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering exercise, certain social issues may be identified (e.g. unemployment, declining numbers of youth, perceptions of safety and security, health problems in local population). Facilities/ programs that, in part, address these issues should be considered more socially desirable.

Rating guidelines

  1. Could exacerbate known social issues in the local community
  2. Will have a neutral effect on known social issues in the local community
  3. Will partially contribute to alleviating known social issues in the local community
  4. Evidence of a significant reduction in known social issues can be established

1.7 To what extent will this facility/program increase participation rates?

Measuring the extent to which a facility or programs will increase participation rates is a difficult task. The best method is to determine whether demand on existing facilities and programs is limiting the ability of groups and individuals to participate in activities of choice. At times (but certainly not always) the physical presence of a facility (e.g. footpaths) will improve participation rates.

Rating guidelines

  1. Will have a negative impact on overall participation rates
  2. Will have a neutral effect on overall participation rates
  3. Will partially contribute to an increase in participation rates
  4. Evidence of a significant increase in participation rates can be established

1.8 To what extent will this facility/program cater for the disadvantaged in the catchment population

Definitions for the less advantaged in the community would include people with mental and physical disabilities; low income families; unemployed or people with significant health issues. Data attained during Stage One should assist in this process.

Rating guidelines

  1. Will exclude the less advantage
  2. Has no known benefits to the less advantaged
  3. Will partially cater to the needs of the less advantaged
  4. Has above compliance facilities and programs to cater to the less advantaged

2. Catchment dynamics

2.1. How well do existing and projected participation rates match the proposed facility's/program's function

Comparing projected participation rates carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering with the facility’s/program’s projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

  1. Target groups are mismatched to existing and projected participation rates
  2. End users are somewhat matched to existing and projected participation rates
  3. End users reasonably well matched to existing and projected participation rates
  4. End users are almost perfectly matched with existing and projected participation rates

2.2. How distinct is the catchment population for this facility/program from other facilities or programs?

Ensuring that the proposed facility's/program's catchment does not overlap with existing facilities/program's is critical to their long term sustainability. Refer to Stage One - Determining Catchment/Study Area Guidelines:

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility/program is in the immediate catchment of other facilities/programs of a similar nature
  2. Facility /program catchment is somewhat discrete
  3. Facility/program catchment is generally discrete
  4. Facility/program catchment is entirely discrete

2.3. How well does the target population of the proposed facility/program match the age profile of the existing catchment population?

Comparing catchment/ study area population profiles carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering with the facility's/ program's projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility/program target groups is mismatched to catchment population profiles
  2. Facility/program end users are somewhat present in the catchment
  3. A significant proportion of the facility/program end users are within the catchment
  4. Proposed facility/program end users are almost perfectly matched to local population profiles

2.4 How well does the income profile of the catchment population reflect the income versus participation profile of the proposed facility/program?

Comparing catchment/study area income profiles and participation profile carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

  1. User costs exceed the disposable income capabilities of the local community
  2. User costs somewhat exceed the disposable income capabilities of the local community
  3. User costs are somewhat matched to the disposable income capabilities of the local community
  4. User costs are entirely appropriate for the local community's disposable income capabilities

2.5 How well does the cultural flavour of the proposed facility/program mirror the catchment population?

Comparing catchment/study area ethnicity profiles (carried out as part of Stage One - Intelligence Gathering) with the facility's/program's projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criterion. The key is to ensure that the cultural leisure preferences are matched to the intended function of the facility/program.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility/program function is mismatched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
  2. Facility/program function is somewhat mismatched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
  3. Facility/program function is somewhat matched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
  4. Facility/program function is predominately matched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population

3. Stakeholder and community engagement

3.1 To what degree does the local community (nearby residents) support the proposed facility/program?

Gauging local community support is a complex task. Support can me measured in degrees based on the results of a survey (e.g. strongly support, support, opposed, strongly opposed) or consultation activities.

Rating guidelines

  1. 75% or more of the local community strongly opposed or opposed
  2. 50-75% of the local community strongly opposed or opposed
  3. 50-75% of the local community strongly support or support
  4. 75% or more of the local community strongly support or support

3.2 To what degree does the catchment population support the proposed facility/program?

Gauging regional or catchment support can be measured through a survey sample, public comments or as part of the broader engagement process (e.g. workshop outcomes).

Rating guidelines

  1. 75% or more of the catchment strongly opposed or opposed
  2. 50-75% of the catchment strongly opposed or opposed
  3. 50-75% of the catchment strongly support or support
  4. 75% or more of the catchment strongly support or support

3.3 How likely is the local council(s) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, Council resolutions and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely local government support.

Rating guidelines

  1. Highly unlikely to support
  2. Unlikely to support
  3. Likely to support
  4. Highly likely to support

3.4 How likely is the state government (DSR) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, funding guidelines and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely DSR support.

Rating guidelines

  1. Highly unlikely to support
  2. Unlikely to support
  3. Likely to support
  4. Highly likely to support

3.5 How likely is the state sporting association(s) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, state sporting association strategic plans and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely SSA support.

Rating guidelines

  1. Highly unlikely to support
  2. Unlikely to support
  3. Likely to support
  4. Highly likely to support

3.6 How well have the needs of special interest groups been interpreted and included in the planning process?

The needs of special interest groups can be determined as part of the broader and community engagement process.

Rating guidelines

  1. Dismissed without justification
  2. Dismissed with some minor justification
  3. Somewhat incorporated with justification for omissions
  4. Entirely incorporated

3.7 How secure is community group/potential tenant's commitment to using the proposed facility/program

Commitments from community groups and potential tenants/user groups can be attained as part of the consultative process. An exchange of letters is recommended.

Rating guidelines

  1. No tenants or user groups secured
  2. A few verbal commitments
  3. Some verbal and written commitments
  4. Sufficient written commitments to ensure a high user rate

3.8 To what extent have indigenous and non-indigenous heritage impacts been addressed?

Indigenous and non-indigenous impacts can be assessed through the consultative process, a review of local planning schemes or by engaging an anthropologist or heritage consultants.

Rating guidelines

  1. Not addressed
  2. Somewhat addressed
  3. Almost fully addressed
  4. Entirely addressed

4. Policy

4.1 How well does the proposed facility comply with the recommendations of liveable neighbourhood?

Liveable Neighbourhoods, the Western Australian Planning Commission's planning and design guidelines, promotes integrated urban form, high levels of passive surveillance, pedestrian friendly streetscapes and a hierarchy of POS and facility distribution. In regional areas, this may be less relevant. In this instance, rate the facility a 4. The same should apply to program based solutions.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
  2. Somewhat at odds with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
  3. Somewhat complies with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
  4. Entirely complies with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles/NA

4.2 To what extent does the facility promote the objectives of network city?

Network City promotes high-medium density nodal developments connected through a network of accessible roads and public transport options. In regional areas, this may not be relevant. In this instance rate the facility a 4. The same should apply to program based solutions.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with Network City principles
  2. Somewhat at odds with Network City principles
  3. Somewhat complies with Network City principles
  4. Entirely complies with Network City principles/NA

4.3 How well does the facility/program meet DSR's sd4 policy guidelines?

The policy review should identify the core intent of the Department of Sport and Recreation's Strategic Directions policy statement and evaluate the alignment of the proposed facility or program development with that policy.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with the SD4 Policy
  2. Somewhat at odds with the SD4 Policy
  3. Somewhat complies with SD4 Policy
  4. Entirely complies with the SD4 Policy

4.4 How well does the facility/program meet relevant local government policies?

The policy review should identify relevant local government policies, procedure and community facility and service strategic plans.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with the local government policies and plans
  2. Somewhat at odds with the local government policies and plans
  3. Somewhat complies with the local government policies and plans
  4. Entirely complies with the local government policies and plans

4.5 How well does facility/program development of this kind support the local authority's corporate plan?

Corporate strategic plans provide an overarching direction to local government. They usually consist of a vision statement, set of guiding principles, key initiatives and performance indicators.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with the local government strategic plan
  2. Somewhat at odds with the local government strategic plan
  3. Somewhat complies with the local government strategic plan
  4. Entirely complies with the local government strategic plan

4.6 To what extent does the proposed facility/program comply with regional community facility and service development strategies?

Many local governments participate in regional recreational advisory groups. Many have developed facility and program based strategic plans. These should be identifi ed as part of the policy review process. Where these have not been prepared rate the facility/program a 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with the regional strategic plan
  2. Somewhat at odds with the regional strategic plan
  3. Somewhat complies with the regional strategic plan
  4. Entirely complies with the regional strategic plan/NA

4.7 To what extent does the proposed facility/program reflect the WA state sustainability strategy?

The WA State Sustainability Strategy (SSS) guides a number of key government policies and initiatives. An overview should be prepared as part of the policy review.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with the WA SSS
  2. Somewhat at odds with the WA SSS
  3. Somewhat complies with the WA SSS
  4. Entirely complies with the WA SSS

4.8 How well does this facility/program proposal reflect other state government initiatives?

The policy review should identify any other state government initiatives that are relevant to the proposed facility or program. If no other policies are deemed to be relevant rate the facility a 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely at odds with other state government initiatives
  2. Somewhat at odds with other state government initiatives
  3. Somewhat complies with other state government initiatives
  4. Entirely complies with other state government initiatives

5. Location

5.1 To what extent does the location and design of the facility integrate with the surrounding urban fabric?

Integration with the surrounding urban fabric can be measured in terms of the facility's connections (e.g. footpaths, roads) to nearby land uses, sightlines and views, architectural consistency and the extent to which land use conflicts are possible. For some program solutions this criteria may not be considered relevant. In this instance it should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. No integration and land use conflicts likely
  2. No integration, but no negative effects
  3. Somewhat integrated
  4. Fully integrated/ NA

    5.2 How accessible is the facility/program via public transport?

Accessibility via public transport can be measured in terms of proximity and frequency of buses and trains to the facility or program. Consideration should also be given to the extent to which public transport frequency matches peak usage times.

Rating guidelines

  1. Very inaccessible
  2. Somewhat inaccessible
  3. Somewhat accessible
  4. Very accessible

5.3 How accessible is the facility/program for pedestrians and cyclists?

Accessibility for pedestrians can be measured in terms of proximity and network of cycle ways and footpaths. Ped-shed analysis may also assist in rating this criterion.

Rating guidelines

  1. Very inaccessible
  2. Somewhat inaccessible
  3. Somewhat accessible
  4. Very accessible

5.4 To what degree does the standards gap analysis indicate a need?

Locational decisions relating to facilities and programs should, in part, be tied to a standards based gap analysis. Guidelines are provided as part of Stage One.

Rating guidelines

  1. Entirely inconsistent with provision standards
  2. Somewhat inconsistent with provision standards
  3. Somewhat consistent with provision standards
  4. Entirely consistent with provision standards

5.5 How readily are local schools and education institutions able to access the proposed facility or program?

Use of facilities and programs by schools and education institutions is an important contributor to the long term viability of facilities and should be promoted where possible.

Rating guidelines

  1. Not accessible
  2. Occasionally accessible
  3. Regularly accessible
  4. Fully accessible

5.6 What degree of visibility and exposure will this facility/program have within the local community?

Visibility and exposure has marketing, accessibility and safety benefits.

Rating guidelines

  1. Visibility and exposure has marketing, accessibility and safety benefits.
  2. Some visibility and exposure
  3. Good level of visibility and exposure
  4. Excellent level of visibility and exposure

5.7 To what extent will the facility/program generate activity that will enhance community safely?

It is now accepted that the safest community spaces are the busiest, particularly at night. The extent to which a program or facility generates day, night, weekday and weekend activity can be used as an indicator.

Rating guidelines

  1. Limited activity
  2. Activity, but limited to a few hours a day
  3. Good level of activity
  4. Excellent level activity

6. Design

6.1 How strong are the synergies between the potential user groups at present?

This requires an indication of the compatibility and connectedness between potential user groups. Complementary seasonal users will generally rate high. Groups that are already working together and groups are collaborating to lobby for the proposal will rate high.

Rating guidelines

  1. There is an identified antagonism between potential user groups
  2. There is potential for conflict in demand for the facility between the user groups
  3. User groups are highly compatible and operate counter cyclical
  4. Groups have already collaborated and are making a joint approach for the facility or program

6.2 To what degree does the design of the facility/program, allow for flexibility and changing function?

Whilst facilities and programs must be fit for a purpose, the more multi-purpose they are, the greater appeal and applicability they have to a cross-section of the community. Very specific or single purpose facilities and programs rate poorly.

Rating guidelines

  1. Design is specific and for a single purpose and will not accommodate alternative use or applications
  2. Design places limitations on the range of activities that can be undertaken
  3. Design is flexible and allows multiple use/application with some alteration
  4. Design is highly flexible and allows a variety of uses/applications without alteration

6.3 To what extent does the proposed facility or program promote shared use?

Shared use facilities generally rate high from a feasibility point of view as they encourage synergies, expand the catchment potential or increase its financial robustness. Programs that promote or enhance the level of shared use of a facility should be rated high.

Rating guidelines

  1. A single user group will control and dominate use
  2. A limited and fixed number of users will share access
  3. Regular users will make most of the use but other groups will be encouraged to access the facility or program
  4. The facility or program will accommodate a wide variety of users at different times and for different purposes.

6.4 To what degree does the design incorporate ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Design) principles?

ESD includes solar passive orientation, environmentally friendly building materials, renewable energy sources, grey water reuse, waste recycling and energy efficient plant and equipment. In the case of program solutions this criteria is not relevant and should be rated 4. NB: Considerations should be given to the facilities design to minimise the Ecological Footprint (EF).

Rating guidelines

  1. Does not address ESD principles
  2. Somewhat addresses ESD principles
  3. Generally addresses ESD principles
  4. Completely addresses ESD principles/NA

6.5 To what degree will this facility allow for passive surveillance to enhance community safety and meet CPTED principles?

Facilities that are visible to nearby neighbours, businesses and passers-by are afforded protection by onlookers. Exposure to the street, open car parks and sensitive landscaping to prevent secluded zones are highly desirable. In the case of program solutions this criteria is not relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility is heavily screened and secluded from the community with areas that allow secreted gatherings
  2. Facility is generally visible but has numerous screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes
  3. Facility is generally visible from surrounding land uses or passing traffic with very few screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes
  4. Facility is high visibility from surrounding land uses and passing traffic with no screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes/NA

7. Environment

7.1 To what degree will the proposed facility/program provide opportunities for alternative transport modes?

Ready access to the facility is important to enable and encourage utilisation. The shorter the connections within the community and the greater the variety of access options the better. In the case of program solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility is located in a distant or remote location with limited non-car access
  2. Facility is located in a distant location with reasonable pedestrian / cycle links and some public transport connections
  3. Facility is in reasonable proximity to its major catchment population with reasonable pedestrian and cycle connections with some public transport connections
  4. Facility is in close proximity to its major catchment population with strong pedestrian and cycle connections and is well serviced by public transport routes/NA

7.2 To what degree will the proposed facility enhance the physical environment?

Development of a facility on a degraded site to enhance the amenity value of an area is generally welcomed. Clearing of natural bushland, however, is generally less well accepted. In the case of program based solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility development will reduce areas of natural bushland and cause waste discharges into the surrounding environment
  2. Facility development will prevent area rehabilitation or improvement and present waste discharge issues
  3. Facility development will limit further degradation of the area and effectively manage waste discharges
  4. Facility development will rehabilitate and add form and function to a degraded area and effectively manage waste discharges/NA

7.3 To what degree will the facility or program accommodate community based environmental programs

Community based environmental programs can be defined as initiatives or activities that raise community environmental awareness or promote sustainable household behaviours, e.g. tree planting, recycling programs, water wise campaign, etc.

Rating guidelines

  1. No capacity for community based environmental programs
  2. Limited capacity for community based environmental programs
  3. Reasonable capacity for community based environmental programs
  4. Extensive capacity for community based environmental programs

7.4 To what degree will the facility assist in minimising waste to the environment and align with the state government's waste 20/20 outcomes?

Management and design issues will determine how responsive the facility will be to waste minimisation initiatives. In the case of program solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility has no recycling program
  2. Facility has limited recycling program
  3. Facility has some recycling activities and moderates energy use
  4. Facility uses clean fuel, captures rainwater, contains stormwater, permits grey water reuse and engages in recycling and minimizes energy use/NA

8. Operations

8.1 To what extent will the facility/program be able to recover operating costs from user fees?

Expense recovery is a key performance indicator for community facilities and services. A financially viable facility or service will be able to generate sufficient income from its activities to meet its operating costs.

Rating guidelines

  1. Costs will be met almost entirely by sources other than user fees
  2. Costs will be met largely by sources other than user fees
  3. Costs will be met substantially from user fees and other operating income
  4. Costs will be met entirely from user fees and other operating income

8.2 To what extent are other parties able to contribute to operating costs?

Where facilities and services are likely to incur a trading loss or operating deficit, it is useful to spread financial costs across more than one party. Given that community facilities and programs are usually built on local government owned or controlled land, it is often the host LGA that is left to meet any operating shortfall. It is an advantage if this deficit can be offset by contributions from others, such as the Department of Education and Training, commercial operations or surrounding LGA's in the case of regional facilities and programs.

Rating guidelines

  1. Operating costs will be met almost entirely by the host LGA with little to no contribution from operating income
  2. Operating costs will be met by operating income and contributions from the LGA
  3. Operating costs will be met by operating income, contributions from the LGA and other parties
  4. Operating costs will be met entirely from user fees and operating income

8.3 To what extent will this facility or program facilitate full time use (all hours, all seasons)?

Due to the expense of establishing community infrastructure and services the aim is to maximise utilisation of facilities. Those that are only seasonal or only used for limited periods, rank lower that those used all hours and all year round.

Rating guidelines

  1. Facility/program is seasonal and primarily out of hours
  2. Facility/program is seasonal and tending to all hours
  3. Facility/program is all year round and primarily out of hours
  4. Facility/program is all year round and tending to all hours

8.4 To what extent will this facility/program provide local employment opportunities?

Due to the expense of establishing community infrastructure and services the aim is to maximise utilisation of facilities. Those that are only seasonal or only used for limited periods, rank lower that those used all hours and all year round.

Rating guidelines

  1. There will be very minimal staff input required for this facility/program
  2. There will be moderate staff required to run this facility/program
  3. There will be some reasonable staff employment opportunities for local staff as a result of this facility/program being established
  4. This facility/program will cause considerable local employment and offer career development and training opportunities within the local community

9. Funding

9.1 What is the likelihood of the capital cost of the project being fully funded?

As part of the pre-feasibility process, funding investigations should be carried out.

Rating guidelines

  1. Nil
  2. Small chance
  3. Moderate chance
  4. Every likelihood

9.2 To what degree does the council have adequate reserves set aside for this purpose?

Local government reserve funding is a potential revenue source and an indicator of Council support for the project.

Rating guidelines

  1. No reserve allocation at all
  2. A reserve allocation that will meet less than 10% of the total project cost
  3. A reserve allocation that will meet between 10% and 25% of the total project cost
  4. A reserve allocation that will meet more than 25% of the total project cost

9.3 What is the likelihood of financial (capital and management) contributions from more than one local government?

Funding from other local governments is a good indicator that the project has a regional focus. It is particularly relevant when the facility's/program's catchment extends across more than one municipal boundary.

Rating guidelines

  1. Has no impact outside the host local authority area and no capacity to attract funding from other LGA's
  2. Has limited impact outside the host local authority area with little to no chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's
  3. Has moderate impact outside the host local authority area with a reasonable chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's
  4. Has considerable impact outside the host local authority area with a strong chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's

9.4 What is the likelihood of financial contributions from other entities (E.G. state, not for profit sector, developer contributions)?

The potential for multiple funding sources/project partners should be encouraged wherever possible.

Rating guidelines

  1. Is unlikely to attract funding support from any external party or government agency
  2. Has limited appeal to funding agencies but has support from potential user groups
  3. Has relevance to some grant programs and good support from the potential user groups
  4. Has broad based appeal and will readily attract funding from State and Federal agencies as well as the community and commercial sector

9.5 What level of priority does the host local authority ascribe to this facility?

Community infrastructure and services are expensive and often there are many competing demands for funding within a community. The higher the priority a local authority places on this proposed facility the more likely it will be to succeed.

Rating guidelines

  1. Not considered to be necessary by the local authority
  2. Deemed to be useful but not necessarily a priority of the local authority
  3. Deemed to be an important development supported by the local authority
  4. Deemed to be an essential and immediate priority development driven by the local authority

Stage two - program/facility sustainability matrix

Program/facility sustainability matrix
Section
Criteria Weighting Rating Rating
1.0 Social Wellbeing 13% Example scores shown below
1.1 To what extent will this facility/program proposal enhance the social wellbeing of the community?
4 3
1.2 To what extent will this facility/program add to the sense of community?
3 4
1.3 To what extent will this facility/program bring different parts of the community together?
4 4
1.4 To what extent will this facility/program cater for all age groups?
3 4
1.5 To what extent will this facility/program cater for both genders?
2 3
1.6 To what extent will this facility/program address known social issues in the catchment population?
4 2
1.7 To what extent will this facility/program increase participation rates?
3.5 4
1.8 To what extent will this facility/program cater for the disadvantaged in the catchment population?
3 3
Social Wellbeing Subtotal
3.31 3.38
2.0 Catchment Dynamics 9%
2.1 How well do existing and projected participation rates match the proposed facility's/ program's function?
2 4
2.2 How distinct is the catchment population for this facility/program from other facilities or programs?
3 3
2.3 How well does the target population of the proposed facility/program match the age profile of the existing catchment population?
3 3
2.4 How well does the income profile of the catchment population reflect the income vs participation profile of the proposed facility/program?
4 3
2.5 How well does the cultural flavour of the proposed facility/program mirror the catchment population?
3 3
Catchment Dynamics Subtotal 12% 2.7 3.2
3.0 Community and Stakeholder Engagement


3.1 To what degree does the local community (nearby residents) support the proposed facility/program?
2 3
3.2 To what degree does the catchment population support the proposed facility/program?
3 2
3.3 How likely is the local council(s) to support development of the proposed facility/ program?
4 4
3.4 How likely is the state government (DSR) to support development of the proposed facility/program?
4 4
3.5 How likely is the state sporting association(s) to support development of the proposed facility/program?
4 4
3.6 How well have the needs of special interest groups been interpreted and included in the planning process?
3 3
3.7 How secure is community group/potential tenants' commitment to using the proposed facility/program?
2 3.5
3.8 To what extent have Indigenous and non-indigenous heritage impacts been addressed?
3 3
Community and Stakeholder Engagement Subtotal
2.83 3.08
4.0 Policy 7%

4.1 How well does the proposed facility comply with the recommendations of Liveable Neighbourhoods?
2 4
4.2 To what extent does the facility promote the objectives of Network City?
3 3
4.3 How well does the facility/program meet DSR's SD4 policy guidelines?
2 4
4.4 How well does the facility/program meet relevant local government policies?
4 2
4.5 How well does facility/program development of this kind support the local authority's Corporate plan?
2 3
4.6 To what extent does the proposed facility/program comply with regional community facility and service development strategies?
3 4
4.7 To what extent does the proposed facility/program reflect the WA State Sustainability Strategy?
2 3
4.8 How well does this facility/program proposal reflect other State government's initiatives?
1 3
Policy Subtotal
2.38 3.25
5.0 Location 13%

5.1 To what extent does the location and design of the facility integrate with the surrounding urban fabric?
4 2
5.2 How accessible is the facility/program via public transport?
4 2
5.3 How accessible is the facility/program for pedestrians and cyclists?
3 3
5.4 To what degree does the standards gap analysis indicate a need?
3 3
5.5 How readily will local schools and education institutions be able to access the proposed facility or program?
3 2
5.6 What degree of visibility and exposure will this facility/program have within the local community?
2.5 4
5.7 To what extent will the facility/program generate activity that will enhance community safety?
3 4
Location Subtotal
3.21 2.86
6.0 Design 12%

6.1 How strong are the synergies between the potential user groups at present?
1 1
6.2 To what degree does the design of the facility/program allow for flexibility and changing function?
3 1
6.3 To what extent does the proposed facility/program allow for shared use?
3 3
6.4 To what degree does the design incorporate ESD (ecologically sustainable design) principals?
2 4
6.5 To what degree will this facility allow for passive surveillance to enhance community safety?
3 4
Design Subtotal
2.4 2.6
7.0 Environment 7%

7.1 To what degree will the proposed facility/program provide opportunities for alternative transport modes?
3 4
7.2 To what degree will the proposed facility enhance the physical environment?
3 4
7.3 To what degree will the facility/program accommodate community based environmental programs?
4 4
7.4 To what degree will the facility assist in minimising waste to the environment?
3 3
Environment Subtotal
3.25 3.75
8.0 Operations 15%

8.1 To what extent will the facility/program be able to recover operating costs from user fees?
2 4
8.2 To what extent are other parties able to contribute to operating costs?
4 1
8.3 To what extent will this facility/program facilitate full time use (all hours, all seasons)?
3 3
8.4 To what extent will this facility/program provide local employment opportunities?
3 2
Operations Subtotal
3 2.5
9.0 Funding Availability 12%

9.1 What is the likelihood of the capital cost of the project being fully funded?
2 3
9.2 To what degree does the Council have adequate reserves set aside for this purpose?
3 3
9.3 What is the likelihood of financial (capital and management) contributions from more than one local government?
2 4
9.4 What is the likelihood of financial contributions from other entities (e.g. state, not for profit sector, developer contributions)?
3 3.5
9.5 What level of priority does the host local authority ascribe to this facility/program?
3 4
Funding Subtotal
2.6 3.5
10. Sustainability Rating 100% 2.88 3.07

More information

Facilities Planning Coordinator
Department of Sport and Recreation
Telephone 08 9492 9825
Facsimile 08 9492 9711
Email the Department