| |
| |
 | ||
| | |
BOROUGH OF POOLE : BAITER SKATEPARK Disclaimer : This is not a design guide or a textbook on wheeled play facilities. Poole Council accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of any information or statements made. It is a matter of common sense that any person or authority contemplating the purchase, construction and management of such facilities should first carry out their own review of the subject, risk assessments and feasibility study for the project. In addition, before entering into any agreement or contract, they should also independently and thoroughly investigate the competence, experience, track record and financial standing of any contractors or designers of equipment that may be used. Project management : Some manufacturers of skatepark equipment offer "design and build" capabilities. For smaller authorities with limited resources, it is obviously tempting to accept such services, but it may be unwise and possibly dangerous to assume that all the responsibility can be delegated in this way. "Designing to a price" may result in cost cutting at the expense of both quality and safety. Some reputable companies have experience in the design, internal layout and configuration of wheeled play facilities, but it is recommended that any such "package" offered should be independently assessed before construction. It is a lot cheaper and less embarrassing to remedy faults at the design stage. Particular attention should be paid to the design and materials used in the construction of the actual structures, the design and performance of safety features such as parapet railings, and the engineering of the base and surfacing. The involvement of a qualified civil or structural engineer is required. Some skate structures are of considerable size and height and may be subject to high force loads and stresses, both impact and static (e.g. large numbers of users). In these circumstances, injury to a user due to poor design or structural failure should be almost unthinkable, because it is possible to apply existing engineering science and practical safety experience at the design stage. In a "design and build" situation the independent assessor should not have to carry out detailed design work, or directly advise on these matters, since these are responsibility of the manufacturer/ contractor. But he should check the structural calculations, drawings, specifications and method statements supplied by the contractor. Provision of this information must be a condition of the contract. Risk assessments, the management of health and safety during construction, and the responsibility for post installation inspection and certification also lie with contractor but should also be independently verified. 1. ORIGINS The Baiter Recreation Ground Skatepark project was the result of direct requests from young people (and their parents) to the Council for a centrally located facility in Poole that would provide a properly designed venue for BMX cyclists, in - line skaters and skateboarders. In terms of Council policy it was helpful that the request was supported and prioritised in the Council's own recently adopted "Strategy for outdoor play and youth recreation in Poole 2000 -2005". Definition. (Note that the correct generic term for this is a "wheeled play facility". For simplicity, the term "skatepark" is used throughout). A skatepark should be understood to be a hard surfaced area containing a reasonable number of specially designed and permanently installed structures (including ramps and street course) that can be used by all types of "wheeled play equipment". The site must have has sufficient space for manoeuvring to permit simultaneous use by large numbers of people. In use, there will often be a flow of "traffic" between different items of equipment and the area is dseigned to accommodate this. A skatepark is quite different in both scale and kind from a "BMX track" (only useable by BMX cyclists), or a single "skate ramp" (appropriate for more experienced / skilled cyclists and skaters, who may be effectively restricted to one user at a time). The facility at Baiter Recreation Ground is a true skatepark. 2. SUPPORT AND FUNDING The local community was able to demonstrate strong, consistent and (most importantly) sustained backing for the project. The formation of a youth action group "Funseeker" was supported by a vigorous and highly professional assistance with fundraising / sponsorship initiatives from an involved group of parents / adults. (Experience suggests that many initiatives like this fail, from lack of a sustained commitment, after an initial, perhaps overenthusiastic, campaign and petition to the local authority) An unusual (perhaps unique) feature of this project is the involvement of a Poole based company (GBH Ramps) who specialise in the construction of skateramps and facilities. GBH provided physical, technical and financial support. Eventually the project was funded from a complex aggregate of sources. The Council's own capital funds (planning obligations), sponsorship, fundraising and external grants. GBH Ramps also donated some of the equipment used in the first phase of the project. 3. FEASIBILITY STUDY Once the true scope, and importance of the project was recognised, the Council decided to carry out a focused review of information relating to "wheeled play facilities". The review was carried out by a parks management officer from Leisure Services (as client) working with a qualified civil and structural engineer from the Council's Construction Related Services. This review formed the basis of an initial feasibility study. A number of visits were made to existing facilities provided by other local authorities, and subsequent discussion took place with officers involved in previous projects. This proved very useful because it enabled the Council independently to: 3.1 Establish "ball park" costs and have a realistic idea of the likely total project figure . (It became obvious, from reliable, if anecdotal sources, that some local authorities have wildly underestimated the true cost of providing wheeled play facilities at the planning stage) 3.2 Review existing national recommendations and guidelines relating to "wheeled play facilities". The existing RoSPA publication "Basic Guidelines for Wheeled Sports Equipment on Children's Play Areas" (1998) was taken as a starting point, but it was soon realised that even such a comparatively recent document has been rapidly outdated by the growth of this extreme sport and changes in the design and use of these facilities. In addition, this document was clearly never intended as a specification orto be used as a vehicle for certification of equipment and facilities. It was then established that a new British Standards Institution "Publicly Available Specification" is in course of preparation for Wheeled Play Facilities. PAS 35: 2000, although not yet available as a published document, is informally available in consultation draft form, and proved to be a more detailed document. It is a most useful check list and guidance, but cannot be taken as a full specification or standard. It was concluded that it was necessary to develop a "performance specification", and to identify local criteria and standards for the design, location and site specific features of skateparks in Poole. 3.3 Special issues relating to materials and construction. Anyone reviewing the current design, construction and use of skate parks will quickly discover that there is no consensus among manufacturers or users on the best type of structural materials for ramps or the type of surfacing. Different manufacturers and user groups will often espouse completely opposing opinions. However, it was possible to identify the basic criteria to inform the decision making process: 3.3.1 Equipment and Structures These need to be durable, low maintenance, weather resistant, quick drying, as far as possible non - slip, structurally strong and stable, precisely manufactured without significant seams, joints, or protruding fixings. It should also be repairable, and reasonably capable of being removed and reinstalled, if necessary. The Council's eventual choice of material for the 'structures' part of the project was to use laser cut and welded steel running surfaces, with a special high friction, non abrasive surface coating. The frame and support structure was specified to be galvanised steel. It was accepted from the outset that the surface coating will need to be renewed regularly. The thickness of the main steel surfaces, and the design of the supporting structure and parapet rails was the subject of detailed negotiation with the contractor, and the Council insisted a higher specifications than were originally proposed by the contractor. 3.3.2 Hard Surfacing Surfacing must be true and level, but not "flat", because it needs to drain quickly after rain. The material must be dense, stable, weather proof, tough, resistant to damage and impact. It should also be easy to repair and low maintenance. It was already established from research that the quality of the hard surface is very important. Small wheeled equipment (inline skates, skateboarders and micro scooters) must have large areas of good quality hard surfaces beyond and around the actual structures. This manoeuvring surface is vital to the success of the skatepark. Water must not stand or puddle on the surface. A fall of 1:100 to drainage gullies was specified. The preferred choice for Baiter was a high quality detailed specification bituminous macadam surface, laid to precise tolerances and standards by an approved sub contractor. In the event, the nominated sub contractor was very competent, and the quality of the finished job excellent. 3.3.3 Groundworks The preferred location was to be a former landfill site, with long term settlement and subsidence problems. It was also very poorly drained. Following a site investigation, a detailed specification for the sub base was developed by the Council's engineers that incorporated stabilisation membranes. The work required unusually deep excavation and backfill with specially imported stone. Because of the large total surface area, it was necessary to specify a proper drainage system to gullies connected to a surface water sewer. The finished level of the hard surface had to be raised slightly above surrounding land to ensure that ponding did not occur. All this added considerably to the cost of the project, but was unavoidable if long term safe use of the site was contemplated. It also emphasised the need for a careful engineering investigation to precede the design and estimating stage. This avoided budget over-runs or belated bids for additional funding that would have be foreseen in a feasibility study 3.4 Location and siting It was realised very quickly that this is a critical issue, and that for many local people, "wheeled play" will be considered a very un -neighbourly activity. In practice it has been found that that majority of users are committed to their sport, well behaved and responsible. Vandalism is mostly limited to graffiti, which apparently seems to be an accepted part of the activity. However, a successful venue will also attract spectators and non participants, who may be less responsible. Wheeled play is inherently noisy. (The sound of metal to metal impact carries for a long way. Resonance and "roar" of the surfaces in use can be very disturbing to residents. Young people enjoying themselves, especially in large numbers, are not renowned for their vows of silence) The structures themselves are also substantial, visually intrusive and may be considered by residents to be unsightly. The following criteria were applied to inform site selection: 3.4.1 Residential property Avoiding proximity to residential property. Although BSI PAS : 35 : 2000 suggests different (and lower) parameters, it was felt that a minimum distance of 100 metres should be set as a firm standard. In practice this was a wise decision that saved much later conflict. 3.4.2 Consultation Consultation with residents and local councillors is essential, but the views of potential users needs to be evaluated as well. "Skate culture" is about more than just the physical activity. It has a display, skill acquisition and social context. A remote location, "pushed" to a distant corner in a soggy, windswept recreation ground by anxious residents will not be popular with young people. 3.4.3 Visibility and security The site should be clearly visible to the public, and capable of non intrusive "drive by supervision" by police and local authority staff. However, it should not be situated on, or close to a busy road. 3.4.4 Parking Adjacent parking is highly desirable, for users, spectators and parents. This will also assist the "unofficial" supervision of the site, increasing security and safety of users and the public. 3.4.5 Pedestrian Access There should be a properly constructed hard surfaced pedestrian access to the skatepark from the nearest footpath or car parking area. Users should not have to walk over wet grass, rough ground or dirt tracks, to get to the skatepark. 3.4.6 Vehicle access Direct (controlled) vehicular access to the skatepark surface is essential. This is required for construction, maintenance and for emergency vehicles. (It may be combined with the pedestrian access above, with drop bollards or a lockable barrier gate to prevent unauthorised use) The cost of providing the access should be taken into account at the design and estimating stage and not be an afterthought. 3.4.7 Lighting Lighting of the skatepark is highly desirable for users. It also improves safety and security. It must be recognised that lighting will increase winter and late night use, so this needs to be taken into account in site selection, even if lighting does not form part of the initial package of work. If the project is successful, users are likely to request lighting at a later stage. (Lighting columns will almost certainly require planning permission) 3.4.7 Planning application. It will be a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether any given scheme requires planning permission. Within an existing public open space, the basic skatepark structure and surface may be deemed to be permitted development, but a direction from the planning authority is essential. A parking area, vehicle access, lighting or other facilities and structures will probably alter the balance and require an application. 4. THE SITE Poole Council was remarkably fortunate in having a town centre site available that largely met the principal criteria outlined in 3.4.1 - 3.4.7 above. In fact, fortuitously, the location already had a properly constructed car park with street lighting, serving Baiter Recreation Ground immediately adjacent. It was possible to design the scheme to be accessed directly off the cul - de - sac end of the existing parking area. The availability of parking has obviously greatly contributed to the level of use and success of the project. Parents use cars to bring their children to use the facility, and some young people using the skatepark have cars themselves. Despite this, it was necessary to meet with the local residents association to agree the exact location and allay concerns. The main issues identified were (and continue to be) visual intrusion, noise and the behaviour of young people on route to use the facility Visual intrusion. The location of site clearly is visually prominent, but does not significantly affect the visual amenity of residents. Distance from property is the critical factor. It is clearly not sensible to consider landscaping and screening a facility like this retrospectively. Noise. Despite the distance from property, noise was considered to be a matter that needed to be addressed at the design stage. The running surface were required to incorporate a sound deadening element to reduce noise from resonance and impact. Behaviour This is a difficult issue, but it is important to recognise that young people are legitimate users of a public recreation ground and should not be stereotyped as troublemakers. The site is "open" to use at all hours and cannot be realistically fenced and locked after hours. Few young people would be defeated by a "security fence" if they wished to gain access, and it is unrealistic to restrict hours of use, or provide on site adult supervision. The attitude of the Police was critical. In Poole they were supportive of the project and the location. They took the pragmatic view that it encouraged constructive activities in a key age group of young people, and that the site was highly visible, not unneighbourly to residential property and accessible to their officers. 5. TENDERING AND CONSTRUCTION Once the project was agreed and funding identified, the tendering and construction was subject to fast tracking. In view of the unusual funding arrangements and the involvement of a locally based manufacturer of equipment, the Council agreed to exceptionally waive its financial standing orders to allow direct negotiation with GBH Ramps. However, in relation to this, it needs to be made clear that: 1. The feasibility study had already independently identified the type of materials and methods of construction of equipment supplied by GBH as a preferred option. 2. Feedback from other local authorities confirmed the contractor's experience and track record. 3. The Council had already independently researched "the market" and had a good appreciation of the pricing and quality of skatepark equipment that is currently available. It was therefore able to satisfy itself that the equipment proposed by GBH was good quality and value for money. 4. The design, quality and cost of the civil engineering and groundwork elements of the work (proposed by GBH to be subcontracted to an approved contractor) could be verified and checked by the Council's engineers and quantity surveyors. 5. It was recognised that the actual design of the equipment, and internal configuration in the skatepark requires specialised expertise that could be best supplied by an experienced contractor with knowledge of users and current practice. The Council was satisfied that GBH had that experience. 6. Due to the specialised nature of the project, in the time available it would not be sensible or economic for the Council to design and openly tender the entire project, or to recommend a lowest price be accepted from a number of bids. 7. A detailed specification for the civil engineering elements was drawn up, and agreed with GBH. 8. A rigorous and legally binding contract, and pricing schedule formed part of the negotiation with GBH, and was signed by both parties before any works commenced. 9.Because of the complex funding arrangement, the contract was divided into three main phases : Groundworks, and two stages of provision and installation of equipment, with payment dependent on completion of the stages. The amount and type of equipment was specified for the different stages, to allow the facility to be brought into use as soon as practical. It was felt that this approach was in the Council's best interest and the measures taken reduced the financial risk normally associated with negotiated contracts. All this preliminary work took several months. However, once the contract was signed, work started almost immediately. The first two phases (with the groundworks complete, and a significant amount of the equipment in place) was completed and commissioned for use within eight weeks of commencement. Once practical completion of the first two stages had been agreed, the Council arranged for a "post installation" independent assessment and audit of the facility to be carried out by RoSPA, who have experts in the field of play equipment with special experience of "wheeled play facilities. The post installation inspection is essential both for public confidence and safety, and for the Council. A number of minor defects were noted and rectified, but essentially the facility was found to be satisfactory and capable of immediate use. The third phase was completed by the end of 2000. 6. USE, MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY ISSUES Use The Council is the landowner and manager of the facility, situated in a public recreation ground. The facility is open to all users, without charge or restriction on hours. Management For management purposes the site is the responsibility of Parks and Open Spaces Section of Leisure Services. To facilitate day to day management, the facility has been brought into the Council's existing boroughwide grounds maintenance contract. This incorporates the new facility in the existing contract, and specifies the standards of inspection and responsibility for day to day "housekeeping". In effect the site has been designated as a "children's play area". Although it does not entirely fit this technical category, it clearly establishes the principle that the Council's grounds maintenance contractor will routinely inspect the site daily, sweep the surface of debris, collect litter and report any obvious damage or vandalism immediately. The Council has also provided a number of new litter bins and rescheduled (increased) the collection to reduce the litter problem In addition to basic measures to ensure reasonable public safety, this arrangement identifies the first line of responsibility, and satisfies the immediate requirements of the Council's insurers in terms of liability, risk and potential claims for injury. Annual inspection The grounds maintenance contractor is also responsible for arranging an annual, recorded, independent engineering inspection and safety audit of the whole facility, including structures, surfacing and ancillary facilities Site Notices RoSPA and BSI PAS publications also recommend clearly worded site notices, advising users on safety and sensible practice. Such notices should also provide management information to the public about the facility and the Council. All this was done and carefully worded informative notices are in place. Safety This activity has to be understood as an extreme sport. Safety is therefore a relative concept, not an absolute. If the Council does not provide facilities, young people will continue to use the "urban realm" in inappropriate and potentially dangerous ways, at risk to themselves and others. The Council's objectives are to provide a challenging facility, and to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of users and the public generally. Risk assessment. In addition to the measures taken above, the Council will carry out and regularly review risk assessments in relation to the provision and use of the facility. 7. TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND STATISTICS. Surface area of facility 40 X 26 meters (1040 sq. m) (NOTE : Although this seems large, this surface area is barely adequate when well used, and it may be necessary to enlarge it to increase circulation and manoeuvring space. The figure does not include the carpark or vehicle access ) Approximate initial cost of project £150,000 (NOTE : Inclusive of professional fees, but does not include the cost of additional lighting or facilities such as litter bins, nor the cost of reinstating surrounding land after construction works. The revenue costs for maintenance, post installation inspection, signage and staff costs are not accounted for in the initial capital sum) Equipment 11 main items as noted below Spined driveway = spine + driveway Spined mini ramp = flatbank + mini ramp + quarter pipe Baby Flatbank Jumpbox driveway = Jump box + driveway Quarterpipe combo = 2 quarterpipes + flatbank Baby quarterpipe Ancillary facilities to be provided at a later date. lighting seating shelter additional hard surfacing for freestyle inline skaters 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS At its discretion, the Council may make available, to other local authorities only, copies of the detailed contract documents at a charge of £25 inclusive of p&p. This will be done on the understanding and condition that they are not for reproduction, that the information is treated as technically and financially confidential and that copyright is retained by the Borough of Poole. It should be noted that due to the special circumstances of the Baiter Skatepark Project the documents cannot be easily or directly used as a model for an open tender. | ||
| | |