Hartlepool Borough
Council
A Strategy for
Multi-Use Games
Areas (MUGA’s)
in Hartlepool
Final Report
December, 2005
Document1
2
CONTENTS
1.
Executive Summary of Key Issues ................. 3
2.
Introduction .................................... 4
3.
Definition of a MUGA ............................ 5
4.
Analysis Areas .................................. 6
5.
Why Provide MUGA’S .............................. 7
6.
Guidelines on Provision ......................... 8
7.
Standards of Provision .......................... 9
8.
A Local Strategy for Provision ................. 10
9.
Local Demand/Consultation ...................... 11
10. Management and Use ............................. 12
11. Hierarchy of Provision ......................... 13
12. Priorities ..................................... 14
13. Cost Guidelines/Finance ........................ 15
14. Planning ....................................... 16
15. Conclusion/Recommendations ..................... 17
16. Proposed MUGA’S on a Ward Basis ................ 18
17. Appendices
Document1
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
1.
With a number of existing and proposed Multi-Use Games Areas
being developed through regeneration and education initiatives
on an ad hoc basis across the town, the Council has decided
that a co-ordinated and strategic approach is necessary to
ensure a comprehensive and sustainable framework of facilities
which meet identified needs, shortfalls and deficiencies and
avoids duplication.
2.
A Strategy would also address the important aspect of
Management and Use of such facilities and would strengthen
bids for internal and external funding as well as avoiding
potential duplication of resources and facilities.
3.
As part of any Youth Provision Strategy (U16 age group), it is
important to address provision for young people in relation to
the need for and demand upon open spaces.
4.
The MUGA Strategy aims to recommend the ideal hierarchy and a
network of MUGA’s serving each part of the Borough.
To be
successful, the facilities need to be seen and be able to
deliver
Neighbourhood/Doorstep
opportunities.
It
is
recommended that MUGA’s should be within 10/15 minutes walking
distance from home.
As a result, each Ward in Hartlepool
should have access to at least one MUGA.
5.
As with the Playing Pitch Strategy, the study looks at the
provision in different areas of the Borough by splitting them
into the Wards within 3 analysis areas of the North area,
Central area and South area.
(Refer Appendix 1)
6.
A hierarchy of provision of MUGA’s will need to be adopted and
priorities established which should reflect local need/demand,
shortfalls in provision and the Council’s Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategy, which reflects the disadvantaged areas of
the town.
Account also needs to be taken of “hot spots” of
anti-social behaviour.
(Refer Appendix 4)
7.
The Strategy identifies a definition of a MUGA and reflects 5
types of MUGA surface specifications considered acceptable by
Sport England.
(Refer Appendix 5)
8.
In terms of management and use, only as a last resort, have
“stand alone” facilities been considered. Management and use
is a key issue for the success of MUGA’s and therefore they
should be linked to an existing or proposed facilities and
management structures, e.g. school base, Leisure Centre,
Community Centre, Youth Centre, Club etc.
MUGA’s must be an
integral part of the Council’s Sports Development Policy.
9.
Currently there is a variety of Management Practice across the
town.
For the future, it is recommended that for community
use of MUGA’s the management comes under a single body with a
single pricing policy (with Revenue support) and a single
Management Committee.
Document1
4
10.
All MUGA sties should have opening and closing times.
For
Type 1 & 2 (Macadam surface) facilities, with management on or
off site, MUGA’s will be available for casual use. For Type 3
& 4 (Polymeric) and Type 5 (Synthetic), facilities with onsite management MUGA’s only be available for organised use.
11.
It is important that the cost of hire of MUGA’s is set at a
level that is affordable to disadvantaged groups.
Currently
there is no common pricing policy.
This needs to be
addressed.
12.
Whilst MUGA’s are classed as sports areas, they should also be
regarded as an important “social engineering tool”.
In
addition
to
addressing
increasing
and
introducing
participation in physical activity, they can also address such
issues as health, anti-social behaviour, crime, social
inclusion, neighbourhood renewal, community well being and
improving the environment, etc.
13.
The Strategy will make recommendations in relation to:(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Retention of existing facilities.
Closure of existing facilities.
Upgrading of existing facilities.
Replacing existing facilities.
Providing new facilities.
14.
Priorities in provision will be established and an approximate
cost for realising the Strategy recommendations identified.
15.
The recommendations contained in this Strategy are only
recommendations.
Before any development takes place on the
ground at individual locations, further consultation will take
place alongside the normal planning procedures.
Document1
5
INTRODUCTION
The Hartlepool MUGA Strategy was commissioned by Hartlepool Borough
Council and undertaken by Dacre Dunlop – Sports Consultant in
September, 2005. It was supported by Sport England – North East.
The Strategy has been undertaken with the following objectives:-

An assessment of existing facilities addressing standards of
provision, ownership and management and use.

Standards of provision required, a hierarchy of provision and
priorities to meet needs, demands and shortfalls and an
identification of strategic locations.

Establishment of sound management structures and programmes of
use linking to the Council’s Sports Development Programme.

Linkage to the Council’s Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy and
Community Strategy.
(Refer Appendix 2 and 3)

Guidelines on opportunities to create new facilities, improve
existing ones and close others to provide a sustainable
network of neighbourhood facilities, providing a wide range of
activities and opportunities.
As with the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy, the MUGA Strategy
looks at provision in different areas of the Borough, splitting them
into 3 analysis areas of:(a)
(b)
(c)
North Area
Central Area
South Area
and then sub-dividing the areas into Wards.
(Refer Appendix 1)
The aim of the provision of MUGA’s across the Borough is to provide
neighbourhood facilities, which can be used for both formal and
informal/casual sport and active recreation. The facilities must be
of good quality, accessible to all sections of the community and act
as satellite/support facilities to other sport and leisure
facilities, but also provide adequate quality recreation facilities
in their own right.
Document1
6
DEFINITION OF A MUGA AND DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS

A MUGA offers a cost effective solution to a number of sport
and leisure activities.

By definition, a MUGA needs to/should accommodate a number of
different sports and activities. Most commonly, played sports
on MUGA’s are football, basketball, netball, hockey, tennis.
There is inevitably a need for compromise by some sports with
regard to the playing surface, as certain surface types are
more suitable than others for different sports.(Refer to Sport
England Guidelines Appendix 6)

It is important to outline a definition of a MUGA so that the
“scope of the Strategy” is clearly defined from the outcome.

A MUGA is approximately a Tennis Court size (18.5m wide and
37m long).
They are most commonly provided as single court
size, but could be located in pairs or more.

A MUGA should be enclosed with surrounding fencing to retain
balls within the playing area and enable spectators to view
the activities safely and to provide security.
For greatest
durability Weldmesh steel fencing is strongly recommended.

MUGA’s should have rebound boards/walls, although strengthened
Weldmesh fencing can also provide a rebound quality with the
advantage of the area being completely visible, thereby
reducing the risk of vandalism. Recessed goals should also be
provided.

The playing surface of a MUGA ranges from Porous Macadam to
Polymeric (rubberised) to Synthetic Turf.

To achieve maximum use and income, floodlights should be
considered, however, in built up areas, these may well be
subject to environmental and planning constraints.

Equipment for MUGA’s and court markings should be considered
from the outset.

For MUGA’s, larger than a one-court size access to support
facilities should be provided, e.g. changing rooms are
desirable.

Where possible, ancillary facilities such as toilets, seating
etc. should be provided.

If correctly planned, managed and used, MUGA’s can provide a
comprehensive
and
sustainable
framework
of
sport
and
recreation facilities.
Document1
7
For more detailed information on design aspects, refer to the
appendices in this report, but also to “A Guide to the Design,
Specifications and Construction of MUGA’s” produced by Sport England
in conjunction with the Sports and Play Construction Association.
Document1
8
ANALYSIS AREAS

As with the Playing Pitch Strategy, the MUGA Strategy looks at
provision in different areas of the Borough by splitting it up
into 3 analysis areas.
(a)
(b)
(c)
North Area
Central Area
South Area
and then sub-dividing the areas into Wards.

The areas and Wards are shown on the map below:-
North
Central
South
Document1
9

The Strategy has also taken into account the Hartlepool
renewal priority areas, which are shown in the map in Appendix
2.
Document1
10
WHY PROVIDE MUGA’s

They
provide
opportunities.

They provide a framework of planned provision for youth (U16
age group).

They provide a range of good quality, affordable
accessible leisure facilities and opportunities.

They provide neighbourhood/doorstep facilities, which can
increase participation from disadvantaged groups and groups in
our community who are less inclined to participate in physical
activity.

They are a relatively inexpensive, cost effective
sustainable method of providing leisure facilities.

Because of the neighbourhood approach, they can address a
wider social agenda of health, anti-social behaviour, crime,
well-being, community cohesion, regeneration, environmental
issues, social inclusion and Sports Development objectives.
Document1
challenging
11
and
stimulating
leisure
and
and
GUIDELINES ON PROVISION

There are no national/regional planning guidelines for MUGA’s
comparable to the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA)
standards
for
playing
pitch
provision
to
which
Local
Authorities can refer to regarding the provision of MUGA’s.

However, Sport England and the National Playing Fields
Association (NPFA) offer advice in terms of travelling time
(walking) from home in respect of play areas and sports
facilities, which is helpful in determining locations of
MUGA’s.

It is suggested that a 10/15 minute walking time from home
would be an appropriate guideline.
This would deliver true
neighbourhood/doorstep facilities which, if managed correctly,
should encourage participation.

In NPFA terms, the distribution and accessibility of MUGA’s
should be the same as neighbourhood equipped areas for play
(NEAP’s).

Therefore, Sport England and NPFA travel time
guidelines have been adopted for this Strategy.
Document1
12
from
home
STANDARDS OF PROVISION

Advice from Sport England is helpful and has been adopted for
the Strategy.

There are 5 principle types of MUGA’s.
Type 1 and 2
Open textured Porous Macadam for ball rebound sports, such as
tennis, netball and basketball.
The surface can be spray
painted to improve aesthetics and the playing environment.
These areas are suitable for wheelchair sports.
The 2
categories relate to one with tennis as a priority and one for
netball.
Type 3 and 4
Polymeric surfaced areas, which have a degree of shock
absorption and are used for sports such as 5-a-side football,
tennis, basketball and netball.
They are suitable for
wheelchair sports.
There are 2 categories, one relates to
netball as a priority and the other football.
Type 5
Synthetic Turf area for sports such as hockey and 5-a-side
football. The surface may be surfaced with sand filled, sand
dressed or needle punch synthetic turf.
The most modern
synthetic turf pitch has a rubber crumb fill.

As an Appendix to the Strategy, diagrams of MUGA’s are
included along with a table identifying the suitability of
playing surfaces to sports.
Please note that the Hartlepool
Strategy recommends consideration of “recessed goals” for Type
1 and 2 MUGA’s.
(Refer Appendix 6 and 7)

It should be noted that the standards of provision and the
hierarchy of provision recommended in this Strategy have
implications for both the initial capital cost of provision
and the on-going maintenance costs.
Document1
13
A LOCAL STRATEGY FOR PROVISION

With a number of existing and proposed Multi-Use Games Areas
being developed on an ad hoc basis across the town, the
Council has decided that a co-ordinated and strategic approach
is necessary to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable
framework
of
facilities
which
meet
identified
needs,
shortfalls and deficiencies.

To determine a local Strategy of provision and therefore
preferred locations, the following factors have been taken
into consideration, along with Sport England and NPFA
guidelines on travel time from home.
(a)
Consideration
of
reasonable
geographical
opportunities for the youth age group (U16).
(b)
Analysis of the level of deprivation over the Borough.
(c)
Recommendations from the Borough Council’s “Neighbourhood
Renewal Strategy” and “Community Strategy”.
(d)
Analysis of existing facilities.
(e)
Consultation with appropriate groups/individuals.
(f)
Site inspections.
(g)
Standards of provision and hierarchy of provision, which
have implications for both initial capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs.
Document1
14
access
LOCAL DEMAND/CONSULTATION

To help to access local need, demand, aspirations it has been
helpful to consult with the following:
Hartlepool Borough Council Adult and Community Services
Department

Hartlepool Borough Council Children’s Services Department
and Individual Schools

Hartlepool Borough Council Neighbourhood Renewal Team

Hartlepool Borough Council Neighbourhood Services Team

Hartlepool Borough Council Residents Forum

Hartlepool Borough Council Youth Forum

Hartlepool
Teams

Hartlepool Borough Council Neighbourhood Forums

Greatham and Headland Parish Councils

Hartlepool Borough Council Planning Department

Hartlepool Community Safety Team – Anti-Social Behaviour
Unit

Sport Hartlepool

Hartlepool Local Sports Council

Sport England – North East
Document1
Borough
Council
15
Neighbourhood
Action
Plan
MANAGEMENT AND USE

For a MUGA Strategy to be successful, the locations of MUGA’s
must be closely linked to existing management structures and
facilities, e.g. schools, Leisure Centres, Community Centres,
Youth Centres, Clubs, Sports Development Unit etc.

Currently the management of MUGA’s in the town ranges from
non-existent to falling within the remit of various agencies
(e.g. Children’s Services, Adult and Community Services etc.).
For the future, it is recommended that for community use, the
management of all MUGA’s should come under a single body with
a single pricing policy (with Revenue support) and a single
Management Committee.

Only in extreme circumstances should MUGA’s
alone” basis sites with “off-site” management.

The use of MUGA’s is paramount and must be related to a clear
Sports Development Plan/Agenda devised by the appropriate
management
group,
including
the
promotion
of
local
football/netball/basketball league programmes and with links
to existing/emerging sports participation initiatives.

There should be a mix of formal/organised activities and
bookings, together with casual/informal use.
All MUGA sites
should have opening and closing times.
For Type 1 & 2
(Macadam surface) facilities with management or on off site
MUGA’s will be available for casual use.
For Type 3/4
(Polymeric surface) and Type 5 (Synthetic) facilities with onsite management MUGA’s will only be available for organised
use.

Human Resources are vital to the successful implementation of
the Strategy and therefore training of personnel must be an
important element of the development of the Strategy.

The link with existing facilities and management structures
will also help to tackle the issue of the security of the
facilities and CCTV provision should be part of any
development proposal.
Secure access is vital to the use of
facilities and security lighting may need to be addressed.

Bearing in mind existing school provision and the potential of
the “building schools for the future programme” it is
recommended that school sites are a preferred location of
MUGA’s.
This would achieve maximum usage, neighbourhood
provision, school/ community linkage, management ability and
the added value for return on capital investment and meeting
on-going costs.

Targeted marketing and publicity
MUGA’s should be undertaken.
Document1
16
about
the
be
on
“stand
availability
of
HIERARCHY OF PROVISION

Sport England’s technical design guidance contains a hierarchy
of provision, e.g. types 1 – 5 MUGA’s.

It is recommended that Hartlepool Borough Council adopts this
approach.

Existing full sized synthetic turf pitches (STP’s) at St
Hildas School, Dyke House School and English Martyrs have been
included in this study, as they can be adapted for MUGA Type
5activities.

In addition to the existing 3 ATP’s, it is suggested that the
Borough has:(a)
3 Type 5 Synthetic Turf MUGA’s
North Area ~ West View Primary School (existing facility)
Central Area ~ Grayfields Recreation Ground (proposed
facility)
South Area ~ Manor School (suggested new facility)
This
approach
would
dovetail
with
the
Football
Association Strategy and support for 3 football centres
of excellence/academies for the Borough.
(b)
Type 3/4 Polymeric Surface at all identified schools.
(c)
Type 1/2 Porous Macadam at all non school sites.

Apart from Grayfields, it is suggested that all MUGA sites are
single court provision.
At Grayfields, a double court (one
type 5 and one type 1/2) is proposed.

Changing rooms and floodlights would be required at type 5
MUGA’s.

Floodlights should also be considered for all MUGA’s to
maximise use, however, location and planning constraints need
to be taken into account.
Low level lighting for casual use
could be considered.

It should be noted that the hierarchy of provision recommended
for the Strategy have implications for both the initial
capital costs and the on-going maintenance costs.
Document1
17
PRIORITIES

It is important in determining priorities for provision to
take into account existing Strategies and Policies and Inter
Agency issues.

The Hartlepool Renewal Strategy is a key player in this and
therefore priorities for MUGA locations should generally
follow the priority areas identified in the Strategy, and the
Multi-Deprivation Ward Map while taking into account antisocial behaviour hotspots.
(Refer to Appendices 2/3)

Therefore, the priorities following the Renewal Strategy are
as follows:High Priority (A)
-
Burbank
Rift House/Burn Valley
Brinkburn
Owton
Dyke House Ward
Medium Priority (B) Low Priority (C) Neighbourhood)
-

St
Rossmere
Hilda
Ward
(part
of
North
Hartlepool
Brus
Ward
(part
of
North
Hartlepool
Neighbourhood)
Stranton Ward (part of NDC area)
Foggy Furze Ward (part of NDC area)
Grange Ward (part of NDC area)
However, exceptions to this that should be considered on the
basis that there is an identified need and shortfall include:-
Seaton
Greatham
Clavering (Hart)
Park

The rational adopted by the Strategy meets one of the 7
elements of the Renewal Strategy which is “Culture and
Leisure”, which aims to “ensure a wide range of good quality,
affordable and accessible leisure and cultural opportunities”.

However, the added value of this approach is that “Culture and
Leisure” facilities/ opportunities will also impact on many of
the other themes of the Renewal Strategy, namely, Health,
Community Safety, Environment, Strengthening Communities,
Learning and Skills.

Finally, figures from the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit for
Hartlepool, as shown in the Appendices, indicates the “hot
spots” of recorded crime over the last 6 months. It is hoped
that the provision of MUGA’s and the diversionary activities
they provide may have an effect on anti-social behaviour
Document1
18
amongst young people.
The Unit is hoping to monitor the
situation when facilities are provided.
(Refer Appendix 4)
Document1
19
COST GUIDELINES/FINANCE
1.
Cost Guidelines
(a)
Capital
Recent local provision indicates the following guideline
figures. Approximate capital costs including floodlights
in September, 2005 are as follows:-
(b)
Type 1 and 2
-
£80,000 - £90,000
Type 3 and 4
-
£90,000 - £100,000
Type 5
-
£100,000 - £110,000
Revenue
Advice from Sport England also indicates on-going sinking
fund costs for MUGA’s based on the frequency of surface
and enclosure replacement.
(Refer Appendix 8)
2.
Pricing Policy
As a result of different management arrangements, there is no
common pricing policy across all MUGA’s.
The cost per hour
ranges from £7.00 - £15.00 (without floodlights).
It is
important that the cost to hire the facilities is set at a
level affordable to disadvantages groups. For the future, it
is recommended that there is a common pricing policy.
However, this can only be achieved through a single managing
system and revenue support.
3.
Financing The Strategy

Clearly any Strategy identifying a need for additional or
upgraded provision must address a corresponding need for
capital investment against competing priorities within
the Council’s capital programme.

There is currently no funding available or identified to
deliver the Strategy recommendations therefore with, no
doubt, extremely tight local capital budgets, it will be
important to identify the potential for attracting
external funding, if there is to be a realistic chance of
the Strategy being implemented.

In this respect, it will be important at an early stage
to analyse the potential for attracting external funding
or prioritise against known existing external funding,
e.g. Neighbourhood Renewal Fund.

It is hoped that the Strategy and the priorities
identified will help the funding process, both internally
and externally.

Within the section in Strategy on “proposed locations for
MUGA’s on a Ward basis”, a summary has been produced
Document1
20
which identifies a total capital cost of approximately
£1.1
million
to
realise
the
full
Strategy
recommendations.
Document1
21
PLANNING
Current Planning Considerations
Proposals for multi use games areas will normally require planning permission. In
considering such applications, regard will be made to the following policies contained in the
Emerging Hartlepool Local Plan 2005.

GEP1
General
Environmental
Principles
particularly
with
regard to the effect on the amenities of neighbouring
residents

Rec6
Encouragement to Dual use of School facilities

Rec11
Noisy Outdoor Sports & Leisure Facilities
The main considerations of any planning application will be the impact on nearby or adjacent
housing in terms of use, lighting and hours of operation
Possible Locations
The Local Plan policies identify a number of possible general locations for outdoor
recreational use. Where private developers wish to identify a site for 5 a side Centre
(multiple courts) Policies Rec7 and Rec12 are relevant in identifying land west of Brenda
Road and at Tees Bay are relevant.
Developer Contributions
The emerging Hartlepool Local Plan which is likely to be adopted in Spring 2006 includes
policies requiring negotiations for developer to contribute towards the provisions of a range
of facilities and works arising from a proposed development.
Policies GEP9 and Rec2 of the Local Plan specifically relate to the Council seeking
contributions for a provisions of additional works including for the layout and maintenance of
open space and play facilities and any other community facility deemed necessary as a
result of the development. The policies state that the legal agreement may be negotiated.
Policy Rec 2 states that new housing comprising twenty or more family dwellings will be
required to provide safe and convenient areas for casual play and formal play.
The new Planning System
The policies in the Hartlepool Local Plan will be saved for at least three years in view of the
new planning system being introduced under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
004. The new planning system introduces Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) which
comprise a number of separate documents which will progressively replace the Local Plan.
One document contained in the LDF will be a Supplementary Planning Document on
Planning Obligations. This SPD will be a non statutory planning document providing further
detail to stated policies.
The SPD will set out guidance and standards on the use of commuted sums through
planning agreements including the circumstances when an agreement will besought.
Preparation of the SPD commenced in September 2005 and it is anticipated that a draft will
be issued in March 2005 with an adoption date of July 2006.
Document1
22
The document will include a range of requirements including the provision of play facilities,
sums towards town wide leisure facilities and other uses. Guidance on MUGA’s should be
examined in the documents.
Document1
23
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS

A network of good quality, well managed and used MUGA’s would
provide the opportunity for much needed facility based
activity centres.
In addition to creating opportunities to
increase physical activity, MUGA’s should also be seen as a
“social engineering tool”, reducing wear and tear on playing
pitches and demand for 5-a-side football in indoor sports
halls, thus giving the opportunity for a wider based
programme.

Therefore, it is recommended that:(a)
A network of MUGA’s serving each Ward of the Borough
should be developed on a community use basis.
(b)
For community use, the management of MUGA’s should come
under the responsibility of a single body, with a single
pricing policy (with Revenue support) and a single
Management Committee.
Document1
24
PROPOSED MUGA’s ON A WARD BASIS
SUMMARY
Existin
g
Facilit
y
Retain
Close
Upgrade
Replace
New
Provisio
n
1
-
-
(1)
-
Brus
3
(1 STP)
(3)
-
-
Hart
0
-
-
Dyke
House
1
(STP)
(1)
-
Throston
1
-
(1)
-
Stranton
3
(1)
(2)
Grange
0
-
-
Ward
St Hilda
Priority
Cost
-
‘C’
Priority
Ward
60,000
-
-
‘C’
Priority
Ward
5,000
-
-
(1)
High on
Need
Basis
90,000
-
-
(1)
‘A’
Priority
Ward
90,000
5,000
(1)
(1)
Project
Already
Agreed
-
-
-
-
‘C’
Priority
Ward
-
-
-
(1)
‘C’
Priority
Ward
90,000
Comments
STP - adaptations
STP - adaptations
Development
and
costs
within
Grayfields
redevelopment
project
Ward
Park
Existin
g
Facilit
y
0
Retain
Close
Upgrade
Replace
New
Provisio
n
-
-
-
-
Priority
Cost
(1)
High on
Need
Basis
90,000
Foggy
Furze
1
-
-
(1)
-
(1)
‘C’
Priority
Ward
160,000
Burn
Valley
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rift
House
1
(STP)
(1)
-
(1)
-
(1)
‘A’
Priority
Ward
140,000
5,000
Rossmere
2
(1)
(1)
-
(1)
-
‘B’
Priority
Ward
60,000
Owton
0
-
-
-
-
(1)
‘A’
Priority
Ward
100,000
Seaton
0
-
-
-
-
(1)
High on
Need
Basis
50,000
Greatham
1
-
(1)
-
(1)
-
High on
Need
Basis
90,000
Document1
26
Comments
Area
served
by
proposals in Rift
House and Foggy
Furze Wards
STP - adaptations
Fens
Existin
g
Facilit
y
0
TOTAL
14
Ward
Retain
Close
Upgrade
Replace
New
Provisio
n
-
-
-
-
(1)
7
5
3
3
10
Priority
Cost
High on
Need
Basis
90,000
Comments
£1.1 Million required
provide 16 MUGA’s
to
NOTE
1.
No recommended provision for Elwick, Dalton, Hart villages.
2.
Any proposals for commercial development of a 5-a-side football facility should be directed to areas
West of Brenda Road or Teesbay
Document1
27