Via the company's BSF portfolio, we have witnessed a number of local authority sport and leisure departments and county sports partnerships develop strategies in an attempt to maximise the beneficial impact of BSF on community sports provision.

This is due, in part, to the need to address the universal challenge of old, dilapidated stock. It is also a response to ensuring that the ‘next generation' of sports facilities is sufficient to accommodate the predicted annual 1% rise in participation in sport and physical activity and population increases.

In many instances, we have seen rationalisation of existing poor stock, replaced with shiny new facilities developed through BSF. In some, strategic planning and partnership working has resulted in good levels of community use, but in many more the funding envelope and challenging timescales for project completion have had a negative impact on collaboration and facilities co-location.

Does BSF support community use?

It is essential that the provision of sports facilities for PE and school sport is not the only aspect considered. We have, in earlier newsletters, strongly advocated that a clearer, more proactive definition of what is meant by community use is needed from Government and its key agencies. This should then provide a stronger indication of how facilities should be operated and programmed and for whose benefit; but is the message getting through?

It appears not! We have seen too many school management contracts which, to be blunt, will have no positive impact on the Government's own published strategy to improve the relationship between school-based PE and club sport - and in truth, will probably make the situation worse.

So what are school club links?

In the simplistic model shown below, a school works with local sports clubs offering them access to its facilities in return for clubs providing exit routes which enable young people to continue to take part in a range of sports in an independent setting. Where it works well, the relationship matures to the point where clubs also assist schools to deliver PE and extra-curricular sport, and importantly the "5 hour offer". The key benefit in this circumstance is the ability of both parties to negotiate and, to coin a Sport England phrase, achieve a ‘win-win' situation.

It has taken many years and much relationship building to get this principle generally adopted and, although the volume of established school-club links has greatly increased (helped along the way by Clubmark), there is still a long way to go.

This extension and embedding of what has been good practice in schools and joint use sports facilities over several decades should be a ‘no brainer'.

School-club links model:(image)

Facilities management: muddying the water

Now we face the scenario where a school is being redeveloped through BSF and both it and existing partner clubs are under the impression that they will gain access to new and improved sports facilities as a result. However, in many circumstances prior relationships developed with clubs are compromised following introduction of a third party into the equation (i.e. the facilities management company).

The standard approach to BSF contracts is for the school to be allocated clearly defined hours to cover its ‘core curriculum', out of school hours activities and special events. All other use is managed by the contractor under the "3rd party income" remit.

Facilities management and 3rd party income model:(image)

The focus of companies that bid for BSF contracts has been to provide an annual financial return to the LEA/CYPS from 3rd party income rather than focusing on the wider social value of community use. This can reduce the annual net cost charged to the local authority by its LEP, but can lead to a situation where clubs get priced out of the market because of the financial targets to be achieved.

In the least desirable (from a community use angle) facilities management contracts there is clear delineation of responsibility between the school and facilities management company. In these, even the school (let alone the PE and Sport Stakeholder Group) has no influence over which clubs and organisations can gain access to its sports facilities outside of the school's core hours. As a result, existing relationships between schools and clubs can be wiped out (as demonstrated above).

Given the current clamour related to increasing participation, the 5 hour offer, school-club links, the player pathway etc.; isn't it about time that the Government and its advisory agencies (the Youth Sport Trust, Sport England, PfS and governing bodies of sport) stipulated affordable, high value community use as a requirement of the BSF process?

This is surely preferable to the current ‘any old community use will do' approach!