BLAIRHALL COMMUNITY COUNCIL
RECREATIONAL AMENITIES IN BLAIRHALL –
COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
AND OPTIONS APPRAISAL

FINAL REPORT

DECEMBER 2008

Slamannan Road
Falkirk
FK1 5LX
Tel: 01324 624236
Fax: 01324 632550
E-mail: enquiries.falkirk@bellingram.co.uk
Web: www.bellingram.co.uk

CONTENTS

Page No.

Section 1 Introduction 3

Section 2 Description of work carried out 4-6

Section 3 Development Proposals 7-15

Section 4 Next Steps and Acknowledgements 16-17

Appendix A Consultation Questionnaires

Appendix B Community Consultation Poster

Appendix C Illustrated examples of playpark projects

Appendix D Multi-Use Sports Court - sample specification

Appendix E Drainage works on playing field – cost estimates

Appendix F Modular Changing Pavilion Examples

SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 Blairhall is a former mining village in West Fife, situated approximately 7 miles west of Dunfermline and with a current population of c 850 people. The village’s population has grown by approximately 15-20% during the last two years as a result of a new housing development constructed by Lomond Homes.

1.2 The catalyst for this study is the imminent availability of “planning gain” monies from Lomond Homes, under a Section 75 agreement with Fife Council. It is understood that this agreement will release funds to the local community for the purposes of making improvements to local sports and recreational amenities. In early 2008, Blairhall Community Council agreed that in order to make best use of this money - and to optimise the likelihood of matching or exceeding it from other sources - it would be necessary to consult widely with local people, so that it could be demonstrated that any proposed projects had the widest-possible support and buy-in.

1.3 A grant from the Awards for All fund of the National Lottery allowed the Community Council to commission Bell Ingram (Falkirk) to carry out a wide- ranging community consultation and options appraisal examining the possibilities for improving sports and recreational facilities in Blairhall.

1.4 Bell Ingram was asked to carry out two main tasks:

• To consult widely with local people to identify their aspirations and priorities for the village in terms of sport and recreation, and to try to gauge popular opinion about the preferred projects to be progressed.

• Using the results of the consultation, to prepare a number of draft project proposals to design stage, with costings, in order that these could be taken forward for funding and implementation.

1.5 This report describes the work carried out by Bell Ingram, sets out the consultation findings, provides several worked-up project proposals, and concludes with a series of recommendations for the next steps to be taken by the Community Council and other stakeholders.

SECTION 2 – DESCRIPTION OF WORK CARRIED OUT

2.1 The project began on 30 September 2008 with an inception meeting between the Bell Ingram team and Blairhall Community Councillors. This meeting approved the consultation methodology to be followed and identified the key consultees and stakeholders

2.2 The community consultation process began in the village immediately thereafter. With the help of the Community Council, a paper questionnaire was delivered to every home in the village, and a poster was also produced for local display (see Appendices A and B). The questionnaire was made available online at www.bellingram.co.uk. The purpose of the questionnaire was three-fold:

(a) to raise local awareness of the opportunities for the village presented by the imminent availability of new funding.
(b) to canvas the views and opinions of local people about the current state of sports and recreational facilities in Blairhall, and what they would like to see by way of enhancements and improvements.
(c) to inform the community about a drop-in workshop to be held at the New Community Centre on 31 October.

2.3 This workshop, attended by Bell Ingram staff, was held between 2pm and 8pm on 31 October. Around 25 members of the public took the time to discuss in detail their ideas and aspirations for the village.

2.4 During November, a wide range of other consultation work took place. Meetings and/or interviews were held with representatives from the following clubs and organisations (listed in no particular order or priority):

• Blairhall Lunch Club
• “Family Night” at Community Centre
• Blairhall Action Group (representing in particular the views of local indoor bowlers)
• Youth Clubs
• Blairhall OAP Association
• Mother and Toddlers Group
• Senior Citizens Group
• Staff from Blairhall New Community Centre
• Blairhall Rainbows
• Elderobics
• “I.T. on Wheels” group
• Fife Council Community Services (sports development) officers
• Fife Council Community Education officers
• The four local members of Fife Council were also briefed about the progress of the study

The consultation team ensured that the same questions were asked of each of these bodies, thereby ensuring that responses were consistent and comparable.

2.5 The importance of assessing the needs of the village’s children had been stressed by the Community Council. Blairhall Primary School and its nursery are attended by some 160 children from c 93 families, making it by far the largest and far-reaching “institution” in the village. Accordingly, a meeting with the Head Teacher at the school was held on 5 November, and she also arranged for the school’s Pupil Council to consider the subject meaning that the views of all Primary 4, 5, 6 and 7 children were taken into account. In terms of teenagers, around 30 face-to-face interviews were carried out – mostly by using the “captive audience” on board the Queen Anne High School bus – and this innovative technique ensured that the views of this often-elusive group were voiced.

2.6 The emerging findings of these consultations were presented to a meeting of the Community Council (also attended by members of the general public) on 18 November. This was followed by the installation of a small exhibition board which was displayed within the New Community Centre between 28 November and 12 December. This board described and illustrated the findings from the consultation exercise and a suggestions box provided a further opportunity for local people to comment

2.7 Finally, between 13 and 15 December, all of the public feedback and information provided by consultees was collated and analysed. A total of 94 written questionnaires had been received as well as the large amount of information provided by the aforementioned consultees. The analysis revealed the following:

• The quality of responses was excellent, with most people providing thoughtful and practical suggestions.

• There was a very strong degree of consensus about the key projects to be progressed (see following paragraph). Though there were a few “wild card” suggestions, often imaginative, the large majority of responses coalesced around a small number of ideas.

• There is clear enthusiasm amongst the Blairhall community for making improvements to the village’s sports and recreational amenities, but this is tempered by a sense of resentment amongst many that existing facilities have been allowed to deteriorate. More than a few respondents referred to Blairhall as “the forgotten village”. In particular, the underutilisation of the new Sports Hall at the school frustrates many local people, who view it as something of a missed opportunity.

• The village currently lacks a good-sized venue to act as a social hub. In contrast to most similar-sized communities, Blairhall has no village hall or church hall. The New Community Centre acts as something of a focal point but has a restricted capacity, and the same applies to the Village Bar.

2.8 In consequence, it was assessed that the following projects reflected the vast majority of local opinion and should therefore be worked up into more detailed proposals:

• Upgrading the children’s play area

• Extending the New Community Centre

• Creating a new, all-weather, multi-purpose sports court and/or improving the ground condition of the informal playing field adjacent to the school

• Creating new changing facilities for the village football team

• Investigating the possibility of broadening community access to the sports hall at the primary school.

SECTION 3 – DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

(Important note – the estimated costings set out for each of these proposals do not include professional/project management fees, and it would be prudent to add circa 12% to the estimates, unless such fees could be provided by other bodies or otherwise subsidised/ donated. Neither do the costings include VAT, which would add 15% to the estimates unless the body commissioning the work was able to reclaim VAT.)

Proposal 1 – Upgraded Children’s Play Area

This is the improvement idea which has gained most community backing. Interestingly, the support has come not just from the parents of young children, but also from older residents who might not see any benefit themselves but are genuinely keen to see facilities improved for Blairhall’s young people.

It must be acknowledged that Fife Council’s play amenities are typically of higher quality than the Scottish norm, but this is not the case in Blairhall. There is no doubt that when compared with other local villages, the children’s play facilities in Blairhall are poor and old-fashioned. There is widespread support for replacing/upgrading the current play equipment in the village park; this is felt to be the ideal location for such amenities.

The choice of play equipment now available is almost endless and can appeal to all ages. However, Blairhall is ultimately a fairly small community and its population size could probably not justify investment in specialist equipment now being provided for teenagers or even pensioners! As a minimum, though, we would recommend installing (a) equipment suitable for toddlers and (b) equipment suitable for 4-8 year olds.

However, before any decisions are taken about the design of the area and the range of play equipment, consideration has to be given to its continuing ownership, maintenance and other liabilities. Given that Fife Council already has such responsibilities for the existing (small) play area in the park, the “cleanest” solution would certainly be to upgrade and extend this existing area, using new funding from external sources but leaving the ownership and maintenance with the Council. However, this would clearly need to be agreed in advance with the Council. There have been some informal indications that the Council might be prepared to adopt an upgraded play area, created by community effort and fundraising, but it would need to be involved at an early stage to agree the equipment, surfacing and fencing to be used.

The other alternative would be for the community to enter a private maintenance regime. This would entail a quarterly inspection programme – essential for the safe upkeep of the play area – which would give a certificate of compliance with current regulations and a price for required works. The cost of this inspection programme would be circa £1,000 per annum, with parts and labour costs additional.

Surface Types - There are different surface types; loose fill (woodchip), wetpour or grassmat being amongst the usual for small/medium play areas. Loosefill can be the most cost effective, but not necessarily the best. Differing pieces of equipment have different requirements for safe surface type, and depth of surface and so the choice of surfacing should only be made when the equipment types are known.

Fencing and other furniture – Fencing would be strongly recommended for the toddler play area and ideally for the whole play zone. It provides a good security feel for parents and children, and keeps stray dogs away from the equipment and surfacing. The most common type of fencing is 1000 mm high metal bow-top, with a single gate. Seating is also essential, as is the provision of litter/dog waste bins (though agreement would have to be reached with Fife Council that bins would be emptied). Typically, “park bench” type seats cost c £400 each, heavy-duty, vandal-resistant metal bins cost c £650 each, and galvanised steel dog waste bins c £250 each.

Play Equipment – For the purposes of this report, the ranges provided by two fairly local companies – Russell Leisure Ltd of Newbridge, Midlothian and Jupiter Play & Leisure Ltd of Swanston, Edinburgh – have been examined in detail. Appendix C contains illustrated examples of some recent playpark projects completed by these two companies and also a Russell Leisure web page to provide an indicative guide to the type of product ranges that are available. However, many other suppliers from elsewhere in Britain and beyond, can also supply high-quality play equipment.

Costs - The cost of play area installation clearly depends on the quantity and type of materials and play equipment that are chosen. The table below shows the costs of each of the examples shown in Appendix C. In addition, other fairly local comparator sites include the facilities installed by Russell Leisure at Herbert Castle, Dunipace (£80,000) and Lionthorn, South Falkirk (£50,000) (both these costings include full installation).

Funding – Fife Environment Trust has supported several similar projects in recent times, including play areas in Crossford, Dunfermline, Glenrothes, and Kirkcaldy. The Scottish Government has also funded such projects in the past (e.g. via the “Forward Scotland” Community Environmental Renewal Scheme and the Environmental Justice Fund) and although these two funds are no longer available for Blairhall, it is probable that similar schemes will emerge in future. The Big Lottery Fund is another potential source of funding, as is the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.

See Appendix C for drawings/pictures of the
following costed examples:

Russell Leisure Ltd.,
Chapel St Leonards - Toddler area -
Includes all equipment, surfacing and fencing. cost £55,000

Russell Leisure Ltd.,
Chapel St Leonards - Junior area
Includes all equipment, surfacing and fencing. cost £62,500

Russell Leisure Ltd.,
Chapel St Leonards - Teen area
Includes all equipment, surfacing and fencing. cost £76,500

Russell Leisure Ltd.,
Glenrothes (picture)
Includes all equipment, surfacing and fencing. cost £50,000

Jupiter Play & Leisure Ltd.,
Longniddry Play Park, community led project
for the supply and installation of the equipment only cost £41,160
The surface and fencing was completed by the
Local Authority. October 2007.

Jupiter Play & Leisure Ltd.,
Dirleton Play Area, community led project
supply and installation of the equipment and surfacing, no fencing installed. April 2007 cost £32,000


Jupiter Play & Leisure Ltd.,
A case study of the Stonefield Park Project.

Proposal 2 – Extension of New Community Centre

The “New” Community Centre in Wilson Street is a popular and well-used venue. Situated in the centre of the village, the Centre (which was converted from former retail units) is used by a wide range of local clubs and organisations throughout the week (including evenings). It also serves as Fife Council’s locality office.

Despite its popularity, the Centre is far from ideal for the range of purposes for which it is now in demand. It is subdivided into a number of relatively small and irregularly-shaped rooms, on two floors. The largest room, on the ground floor, which has adjacent kitchen and toilet facilities, is eminently suitable for uses such as the mothers and toddlers group but not really large enough for a number of “light” recreational activities such as dancing, badminton, or carpet bowls. Furthermore, any activities taking place in this main room can be disrupted by other users of the building seeking access to the toilets.

The secondary rooms within the building reflect room sizes of a domestic scale rather than rooms which should fit the needs of community activities, and although minimum Fire Safety and Disability Discrimination Act requirements appear to be being met, there is scope for improvement.

We believe that – though it would be an ambitious venture – there is scope to extend the ground floor of the building to the rear and/or re-vamp the internal layout, thereby creating a notably larger main room and ancillary facilities. This would make the building even more attractive as a flexible, multi-use venue for the type of activities mentioned above, and would also reinforce its role as the social hub of the village. The main room could host functions such as community Christmas parties, ceilidhs and the like, which could bring in income to assist with running costs. Extending the New Community Centre would also mitigate some of the local disappointment at the imminent closure of the “Old” Community Centre at the north end of the village.

There are two realistic possibilities for the redevelopment of the New Community Centre. The first option outlined below discusses the design alterations based on a minimum budget. The second outlines the possibility of alterations and an extension based on more substantial funds being available. It should be noted that these preliminary proposals were formed as a result of a brief architectural site visit. Further visits / surveys and input from structural engineers would be required in order to detail the options for the redevelopment of the building.

Option 1 – Minimum Alterations (Approx £50,000 - £60,000 Construction Cost)

The alterations to be carried out on a tight budget would be reflected in minimal works being carried out. The first priority would be to carry out alterations to increase the size of the main hall. The best solution outlined during our brief site visit was to extend the hall into the kitchen area. This would increase the length of the hall, thus providing additional space to carry out additional activities. The Kitchen would be relocated to the utility room which sits behind the existing kitchen at present. Also discussed was the possibility to remove the small room to the front of the main hall. This would further increase the dimensions of the hall to provide additional room for community activities.

Option 2 – Substantial Alterations (Approx - £250,000 Construction Cost)

A complete redesign of the existing facility would allow the centre to function more effectively to serve the many needs of the community. The main room would be significantly extended, enabling many different types of activities to take place. An extension would be proposed to the rear of the existing building, possibly demolishing the existing single storey element behind the main room. The alterations would include an overhaul of the existing circulation routes within the building. This would allow the main room to exist as a separate entity, meaning that it could be used for private functions; this would provide rental income for the centre with the facility being rented out. Other alterations could include a redesign of the first floor accommodation. There is an opportunity to create accommodation for use as educational facilities on various levels, rooms which could accommodate training courses, adult learning and youth work.

Funding - This proposal will obviously have to be discussed in particular detail with Fife Council, the owners of the building. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust (under its “Health and Wellbeing” theme could potentially be a key funder of this project, as could the Fife Environment Trust. European funding via the Leader in Fife programme is also a possibility. Furthermore, the Scottish Government has recently announced that it has made available £30 million for aiding community services and village halls. It is recommended that the Community Council lodge an interest in this fund at an early date.

Proposal 3 – All-Weather Sports Court

Blairhall already has an enclosed and floodlit all-weather sports court, located just to the east of Wilson Street. However, this court has not been adequately maintained and is now in a very poor state of repair: the playing surface is worn out and prone to flooding, the fencing is broken, and access is restricted (via a key available from the New Community Centre), There has been some anti-social abuse of the facility in the past. The court is still used occasionally by teenagers for informal football, but its poor condition undoubtedly inhibits more widespread use.

The consultation has revealed a widespread local desire – especially amongst young people – for a new or replacement court, which could be used throughout the year for activities such as football, hockey, basketball and netball (tennis is also a possibility, although such courts are not often used for this sport). Two possible locations in the village for this project have emerged:

(a) The current site. We do not believe it would be sensible to simply` upgrade/repair the existing court surface – rather, a completely new court would be economically more prudent in the long term and would also allow the use of the latest court technology and materials). There would be several advantages to replacing the existing court in situ:

• It is well located in the centre of the village
• It is adjacent to the Community Centre, making it more straightforward to supervise and manage (as happens with the sports court in Oakley – although another local comparator court, High Valleyfield, is managed satisfactorily from the Community Centre which is some 500 yards away)
• Obtaining planning consent is unlikely to be problematic, given that the area has been used for identical purposes for many years
• There may be opportunities to make cost savings by reusing the existing ground works/foundations and/or the existing lights

Disadvantages of this site include:

• It is too far away from the primary school to allow school pupils to make use of it during school hours/after-school activities
• It is a little secluded, increasing the possibility of anti-social activities

(b) The informal playing field in front of the Primary School. This too offers several particular advantages:

• It is adjacent to the school, which would allow school pupils to use it and greatly increase the range of activities available to these children
• There is a real prospect that if the school were using the court, it could contribute, financially and/or otherwise, to the court’s ongoing operational and maintenance costs
• It is on a “neutral” site between the older parts of the village and the new housing development
• It is a highly visible location, which would reduce the likelihood of anti-social behaviour taking place
• It would be a productive use of open space which is currently under-utilised

Disadvantages of this site include:

• Although there is a long tradition of public use of this land, its actual ownership is unclear at the time of writing and this could potentially create an obstacle to installing new amenities
• Planning consent would be required, introducing another element of uncertainty
• Substantial ground works – especially drainage improvements - would be required, increasing the capital costs

As indicative examples, samples of the Multi-Use Games Area provided by Russell Leisure Ltd of Newbridge, Midlothian are shown in Appendix D. However, many other suppliers can also supply high-quality equipment.

Costs – (a) New-build example:

Russell Leisure MS5045, supply and installation, estimated cost £50,000- £60,000. This would provide: a full (18x35m) court, 2/3m high perimeter walls, goals/baskets at the ends, all finished with a porous tarmac surface. Tarmac is the preferred surface finish for both users and maintenance.

Local examples of Russell Leisure ball courts can be found at: Torryburn Primary School, Milesmark Park, Dunfermline, Cupar YMCA and Beveridge Park, Kirkcaldy.

(b) Upgrade of the existing facility:

To lift existing top surface and prepare the base and lay new surface, replace the damaged boards on the walls, supply and install Russell Leisure MS5002 goalposts/basketball nets: estimated cost £20-30k.

Funding – support for an all-weather sports court could be forthcoming from sources such as Fife Environment Trust, from SportScotland (via Lottery funding and the Scottish Government), and from Fife Council (although the Council’s capital expenditure budget is under great pressure). European funding via the Leader in Fife programme is also a possibility, given its stated goal of assisting young people. Consideration would also have to be given to the ongoing maintenance costs and operating responsibilities for the court. One option to ponder might be for the Community Council itself to manage the court, meeting expenditure and retaining any income – this happens in villages such as Markinch and Crossford.

Conclusion - both of the possible sites have considerable merit, but on slight balance, we feel that the advantages of re-using the current site should make it the preferred option. If the Community Council agrees with this, it might also consider providing resources to make improvements to the informal football field. Better drainage, re-seeding, possibly enclosing all or part of the field, and similar upgrading works would be likely to increase the field’s usage by the primary school and the community in general, with attendant health and social benefits for all. (Again, though, much might depend on the outcome of investigations into the legal ownership of the land). The costs of improving drainage to the entire field are estimated at £10,000- £12,000 (see Appendix E for breakdown).

Proposal 4 – New Football Changing Facilities

Though it was not “voted” for as one of the community’s top priorities, a case can be made for considering the upgrading of the football changing facilities. Blairhall’s football club has played an important role in the village over the years; at one time the club (then known as Blairhall Colliery) enjoyed Junior status before reverting to amateur status. Today, the club (currently called Blairhall Village Bar FC) is enjoying a successful period in the Dunfermline & District Welfare League. Although relatively small numbers of Blairhall residents are actively involved as players and officials, it could be argued that the football team acts as a unifying source of community pride, and is therefore worthy of support.

Unfortunately the club’s changing facilities are in poor condition and have probably reached the end of their useful life. Indicative costings have been obtained for the erection of a new changing pavilion and it is recommended that consideration be given to installing a modular unit of the type specially designed for this purpose. These units have improved immeasurably in recent years and are now widely recognised as a cost-effective solution to the challenge of replacing older-style, less efficient buildings.

Costs - Demolition and disposal of the existing facility, followed by the construction of new foundations, would cost an estimated £10,000.

Suppliers of modular sports changing units include Thurston Building Systems and Portakabin (see Appendix F). A standard modular two-team changing facility (incorporating referees’ room and kit storage space), delivered and installed (i.e. wired and plumbed in), would cost from circa £35,000. Upgraded versions cost in the region of £50,000-£65,000.

Specific examples which might be appropriate for Blairhall include the Portakabin Solus SL122 (£35,000 - £40,000) and the Thurston Building Systems SC2T (£30,000 - £35,000).

Funding – Fife Council has indicated that there is a long list of football changing facilities across the area which need upgrading, and very limited capital funds are available for such works. Blairhall is not viewed as a priority. However, Blairhall could potentially move itself up the Council’s priority list either by the football club demonstrating a commitment towards involving more people in the sport (e.g. developing youth or women’s teams) or by demonstrating that a large proportion of the necessary funds could be realised from elsewhere.

Funding for changing facilities could also be forthcoming from Fife Environment Trust (which has recently supported similar projects in Kelty, Kincardine and Star of Markinch) from SportScotland (via Lottery funding and the Scottish Government), and/or from the Scottish Football Association’s “Cashback for Communities” fund.

Proposal 5 – Sports Hall at Blairhall Primary School

There is no doubt that this is Blairhall’s most under-utilised sports and recreational asset. It is a modern and attractive facility, created using substantial funds from Fife Council and the National Lottery New Opportunities Fund, and yet (despite being described officially as a “Community Hall”) it is hardly ever used by anyone other than the primary schoolchildren.

There are several reasons for this, but the main ones are:

• The lack of a separate, self-contained entrance means that all access to the hall is via the main school door and school corridors. This means that whenever the hall is made available to the public, the school janitor must be in attendance; this in turn greatly increases the hall rental charge, making it too costly for most sports groups to consider using the premises.

• The type of sprung wooden flooring used in the hall means that the premises are only suitable for certain types of sports activity – and even then, approved footwear (i.e indoor training shoes) must be worn. For some activities such as school concerts and assemblies, heavy-duty mats have to be laid down. These rules are strictly enforced. The result is that many potential user groups are excluded from using the hall.

Fife Council acknowledges the desirability of making what is potentially an excellent community asset for Blairhall more accessible to local people. Consideration could be given to several solutions:

• Adopting a “lighter touch” management regime which might reduce some of the financial and physical barriers to accessing the hall.
• Installing new doors within the school to improve the security of classroom areas whilst the hall is being used by the public.
• Creating a new direct access to the hall (probably using the existing emergency exit) and locking the doors into the school area, thus allowing the hall to become a self-contained entity (though one issue here could be the loss of access to a disabled toilet).
• More radically, the hall’s wooden floor could be replaced with “Taraflex” type flooring (laid on a concrete base). This type of flooring would be more resistant to damage from outdoor shoes etc and allow for a wider variety of uses - including social events - but despite its worldwide popularity, some believe it is less suitable for children’s sports activities. The cost of taking this step would be c £50-£60,000 and there would also be the issue of the “waste” of the current floor, which is in very good condition.

It is recommended that discussions about these various options are continued with Fife Council, but that this project is not made a top priority in terms of allocating the “planning gain” funding.

SECTION 4 – NEXT STEPS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

4.1 As Bell Ingram’s role in this project comes to a close, we would like to make some suggestions to Blairhall Community Council about how it should take matters forward.

4.2 The first step should be for the Community Council to hold an early meeting to discuss this report. We would suggest that this takes the form of a special meeting, rather than being a single item within the already crowded agenda of a monthly Community Council meeting. At this special meeting, the Community Council needs to make decisions about the projects it wishes to progress, which projects it wishes to place on a “reserve” list, and it also needs to assess the differing priorities of each of the preferred projects – they cannot all be progressed at the same time.

4.3 As soon as these decisions are taken, we recommend that a meeting with local members and appropriate officers of Fife Council is convened to discuss the way ahead. It is essential that Fife Council is fully engaged with the process from this point forward, in terms of providing general advice on parks, sports facilities and buildings, as well as clarifying the extent to which it can become involved in ongoing maintenance, liability and (possibly) capital funding. This is not to say that the Community Council should expect Fife Council to be the lead body in progressing the selected projects – indeed, we would recommend that wherever possible the “ownership” of the projects should be retained at local level – but nevertheless, Fife Council is likely to be a key player.

4.4 Early steps should also be taken to seek external funding for some or all of the development proposals. The potential grant-awarding bodies which have been identified in the preceding section of this report often have quite lengthy application and assessment procedures, and it is never too early to begin the application process. In addition, we do not claim that the funding bodies which we have identified are the definitive list; there will undoubtedly be other potential sources of funding, and Fife Council (via its Fife Environmental Network) should be able to advise about these. It might also be worth taking advice on this subject from the Scottish Council for Voluntary Associations.

4.5 A decision will also need to be taken about whether Blairhall Community Council has the capacity to be the lead body for applying for grants and then (assuming funds are secured) overseeing the commissioning and implementation of works in the village. The process of making grant applications can be lengthy and time-consuming for voluntary bodies. In addition, as noted previously, there might be a more tax-efficient method of procuring the required works.

4.6 Bell Ingram believes that the thorough consultation process which has been followed will be beneficial when it comes to providing supporting evidence for grant applications. Around one in seven of Blairhall’s residents have contributed directly to the consultation process, and these people represent a wide and representative cross-section of local people in terms of their gender, age and current usage (or in many cases, non-usage) of neighbourhood sports and recreation facilities. In addition, many more residents have had their wishes represented indirectly, via the consultation which has been conducted with local clubs and the school. (In the event of any locally-voiced criticism of the Community Council’s decisions, it may prove useful to point to this healthy sample size and good participation levels).

4.7 Nevertheless, it will be essential to demonstrate that the local community continues to be involved during the detailed planning and implementation stages. In particular, it is recommended that the pupils of Blairhall Primary School and youth clubs are engaged in planning the design and layout of the proposed play area and all-weather sports court, should these projects go ahead. Experience in other locations demonstrates that if children are closely involved, they feel a sense of ownership of “their” play and sports facilities, which manifests itself in lower levels of antisocial behaviour and vandalism in later years.

----------------------------------------------------------

4.8 Finally, we would like to thank Blairhall Community Council for commissioning Bell Ingram to carry out this study. We have found it to be a most interesting and stimulating project and hope that our findings will be of productive assistance in the months ahead, not only for the Community Council itself but also for the whole Blairhall community. We acknowledge with thanks the financial support provided by the National Lottery via its “Awards for All Scheme. Finally, we are very grateful for the generous help and time provided to us by the Chair and Secretary of the Community Council, our many consultees, all the staff and volunteers at Blairhall New Community Centre, and most of all, the people of Blairhall who have contributed so positively during the consultation process.