NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS 
AND LEISURE CENTRES 
 
 
 
FACILITY REPORT 
FOR 
WEDNESBURY LEISURE CENTRE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Prepared by the  
Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University 
 
 
December 2009 
 
 
 

---

 
 

---

 
NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND 
LEISURE CENTRES 
 
CONTENTS 
 
  
Page
 
1. INTRODUCTION 
 1 
 
 
2. 
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE 
 2 
 
3. 
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR WEDNESBURY LEISURE 
 4 
CENTRE 
 
4. 
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA AND POPULATION STATISTICS 
10 
 
5.  
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE  SCORES FOR 
12 
WEDNESBURY LEISURE CENTRE 
•  KEY INDICATORS 
•  OTHER IMPORTANT INDICATORS 
•  SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE TABLES 
 
 
APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 
32 
 
 
 
 

---

 
 

---

 
NBS REPORT FOR WEDNESBURY LEISURE CENTRE 
 
1 INTRODUCTION 
 
1.1 
This report has been produced by Sport England’s National Benchmarking Service 
for Sports and Leisure Centres (hereafter referred to as ‘NBS’) for Wednesbury 
Leisure Centre, which is run by Sandwell Leisure Trust on behalf of Sandwell 
MBC. The report has been compiled by staff from the Sport Industry Research 
Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield Hallam University.   
 
1.2  
Before investigating the details of performance for Wednesbury Leisure Centre in 
this report, please read the accompanying Guidance document to accompany 
facility reports.  
 
1.3 
The data in this report are based upon a survey of 380 users of the centre between 
12th and 20th September 2009, conducted by Result Market Research; and a 
financial return based on the year 1st April 2008 to 31st March 2009. The user 
survey and financial return are supplemented by catchment area data provided by 
the University of Edinburgh.  A catchment area map is provided in section 4 of this 
report. 
 
1.4 
Wednesbury Leisure Centre is classified as being a 'wet' centre which means that it 
has a swimming pool of at least 20 metres in length but no indoor sports hall that is 
of the minimum configuration (of four badminton courts) specified by Sport 
England to be classed as having 'dry' provision. The actual floor space of the centre 
is 2,422m2 which means that it is benchmarked against comparable centres with a 
total floor space of 1,500m2 to less than 3,000m2 (that is medium sized centres) and 
it has 2,236m2 of usable space.  The catchment area has a relatively high proportion 
(30.8%) of residents from NS-SEC 6&7, representing the most disadvantaged 
people in society.  The centre is managed by a trust. In brief the benchmarking 
'families' used for Wednesbury are: 
 
•  wet (benchmark family of 27 centres)  
  
•  20%+ of catchment population in NS-SEC 6 & 7 (benchmark family of 21 
centres)  
  
•  1500 to < 3000 sq.m. (benchmark family of 35 centres)  
  
•  Trust (benchmark family of 42 centres)  
 
 
1

---

 
2.  
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE 
 
Figure 1: Wednesbury User Survey Characteristics 
 
 
Note:  The survey instrument groups respondents according to the NS-SEC  classification, 
 as used in the 2001 Census and now used as standard in all government surveys. 
 
2.1 
The broad nature of the 380 people who took part in the survey is shown in Figure 
1.  The primary purpose of the data in Figure 1 is for calculating performance 
indicator scores for comparison against benchmarks, whilst a secondary purpose is 
to provide important stakeholders with an overview of the user survey sample.  
Venue managers should reflect on the data and qualify the extent to which they are 
truly representative of the customer base (191,387 visits in 2008/09).  It should be 
emphasised that any performance indicator scores dependent on the user survey 
findings are governed by the accuracy of the sampling in this survey. 
 
2.2 
A further test of representativeness is 'internal representativeness', that is the extent 
to which the respondents to the user survey truly reflect the balance of the 
programme and usage of the venue.  Some key indicators in this regard are shown 
in Figure 2. 
 
 
2

---

 
Figure 2: Wednesbury User Survey Balance of Use 
 
 
Note: the percentages 'swimming' and 'using the pool' may vary because of two factors: first, 
many spectators use the pool area; second, the number of non-respondents to each question 
differs considerably. 
 
 
2.3 
Swimming and using fitness equipment were the most frequently stated main 
activities by survey respondents, accounting for 85% of the main activities 
undertaken during the survey period.  Given the distribution of activities 
undertaken, it is not surprising that the pool and gym/fitness centre were the most 
utilised areas of the facility.  It is important that managers are able to confirm that 
the distribution of the users is broadly in line with the centre's overall usage 
patterns.  The majority of activities undertaken were casual (66%) rather than 
instructor led or club usage.  This finding is also consistent with the nature of 
swimmers and gym/fitness centre users who form the bulk of the sample.  56% of 
the respondents had some form of leisure card which gave them reduced price 
admission to the centre. Slightly over half of discounted admissions made via 
leisure cards were by people with some form of disadvantage. 
 
2.4 
Assuming that the surveys were conducted randomly and that the user profile 
accurately reflects the centre's customer base, we now consider the centre's 
performance against a series of performance indicators and family specific 
benchmarks.  
 
3

---

 
3. 
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR WEDNESBURY LEISURE 
CENTRE 
 
3.1 
The centre's performance is reported in two main parts.  First, for key indicators 
and other access, finance and utilisation indicators, the centre's performance is 
reported relative to their 2009 national benchmarks.  Second, for satisfaction and 
importance scores from customers, the centre's performance is analysed by gap 
analysis and grid analysis.  We conclude the summary with our perception of the 
main strengths, weaknesses and factors to watch out for at this centre. 
 
Performance relative to national benchmarks 
 
3.2 
The reference points for the performance for each indicator are the four quartiles 
and three benchmarks identified in the General Guidance Document (page 8) which 
accompanies this report.  This positioning has been judged by the NBS analysts by 
examining 'average' performance across the four family comparisons.  The four 
comparisons for each indicator are in the detailed performance results in Section 5 
of this centre report.  
 
3.3 
The seven facility performance indicators which were proposed for the CPA in 
2007 have been retained as key indicators for NBS reporting.  This is because they 
are a good indication of national government priorities for sports facilities.   
 
 
Key indicators 
Bottom 
2nd 
3rd 
Top 
Key indicators 
25% 
50% 
75% 
quartile
quartile
quartile 
quartile
11-19 years 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
NS-SEC 6&7 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Ethnic minorities 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
60+ years 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Disabled <60 years 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Subsidy per visit 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Visits per m2 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
 
3.4 
One of these key indicators, visits per square metre, is calculated differently to its 
equivalent in the utilisation indicators below.  For the key indicator, the square 
metres of indoor space used in the calculation excludes corridors and offices.  In 
the utilisation indicators part of Section 5 of this report, and in the utilisation 
summary below, the visits per square metre indicator includes corridors and offices 
in the square metres.   Furthermore, the centre had actual central establishment 
charges which were zero and in the financial return you estimated what they would 
have been if they had been charged - the key indicator subsidy per visit calculation 
 
4

---

 
includes these estimated central establishment charges in the total costs.  In the 
financial indicators part of Section 5 of this report, and in the financial summary 
below, the subsidy per visit indicator is measured by using actual costs, including 
zero central establishment charges for your centre. 
 
3.5 
Two of the key indicator scores perform at the median (50%) benchmark level. 
Three key access indicators and one efficiency indicator perform in their bottom 
quartiles. The relatively weak access performances are the results of under-
representation of visits  to the centre by the ethnic minorities (18%), 60+ year olds 
(8%) and disabled under 60 years (5%), when comparing with their proportions 
(31%, 25% and 11% respectively) in the catchment area.   
 
 Access 
 
Bottom 
2nd 
3rd 
Top 
Access indicators 
25% 
50% 
75% 
quartile
quartile
quartile 
quartile
Females 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
11-19 years 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
50% 
20-59 years 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
60+ years 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
NS-SEC 6&7 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Ethnic minorities 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Disabled <60 years 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Disabled 60+ 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Unemployed 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
Discount card holders 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Disadvantaged card holders 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
First visits 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
 
3.6 
When considering the wider set of access indicators, rather than just the five in the 
key indicators, the picture is still of rather weak access performance.  It is important 
to stress that not all the access groups identified are likely to be important to a 
social inclusion agenda.  Three of the groups which might be seen as important to 
social inclusion are located at the 50% benchmark level or above (11-19 years, the 
unemployed, and disadvantaged card holders), but five which are relevant to social 
inclusion are below their 50% benchmark performance levels (60+ years, NS-SEC 
6&7, ethnic minorities, disabled under 60, disabled 60+). Two other indicators (20-
59 years, discount card holders) are in their top quartiles, but these groups are not 
normally considered relevant to social inclusion, because people in these groups are 
not necessarily disadvantaged. 
 
 
 
5

---

 
 Financial 
 
Bottom 
2nd 
3rd 
Top 
Financial indicators 
25% 
50% 
75% 
quartile
quartile
quartile 
quartile
Subsidy per visit 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Cost recovery 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Subsidy per m2 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Subsidy per resident 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Operating cost per visit 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Operating cost per m2 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Maintenance & repair cost per m2 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
Energy cost per m2 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
Income per visit 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Income per m2 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Direct income per visit 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Secondary income per visit 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
 
3.7 
Financial performance is weak relative to the benchmarks, with cost recovery and 
subsidy indicators in their bottom quartiles.  All the subsidy scores in this summary 
table and in the other indicators figures in Section 5 are calculated using the actual 
costs, rather than including any estimated central establishment costs. The main 
factors which drive this financial performance are relatively low income and 
relatively high operating costs.  It is relevant to note that satisfaction with entrance 
charges and value for money of activities are tenth and eighth in the satisfaction 
rankings, with average customer scores of 4.11 and 4.14 out of 5 respectively. 
Although the latter is among the largest importance-satisfaction rank gaps, only 
minority of customers were dissatisfied with these attributes (see below). Together 
these considerations suggest that the activity prices are not near to the limit of 
acceptability for customers. Two specific components of cost perform particularly 
well (i.e. low costs) - maintenance and repair costs per square metre and energy 
costs per square metre - although the first of these opens up the possibility of 
deterioration in service quality and lack of preventative maintenance.  
 
 Utilisation 
Bottom 
2nd 
3rd 
Top 
Utilisation indicators 
25% 
50% 
75% 
quartile
quartile
quartile 
quartile
Visits per m2 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
% of visits that are casual 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
2nd 
Weekly number of people 
visiting 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
 
3.8 
The main throughput indicator, visits per square metre, is measured in the 
utilisation summary table and in the other indicators' figures in Section 5 by using 
the total floor space of the centre. This indicator and weekly number of people 
visiting perform at the third quartile level, suggesting that the reasonably high 
 
6

---

 
annual visits for a centre of this size may partly be attributed to the fairly good 
market penetration in the local catchment population.  The percentage of visits 
which are casual (66%) is fairly low by industry standards but whether or not this 
level of casual use is appropriate depends on the targeting and programming 
policies of the centre. 
 
Satisfaction with and importance of attributes 
 
 Gap 
analysis 
 
3.9 
The tables below identify five attributes with the largest gaps between importance 
and satisfaction, by mean scores or by ranks. These gaps signal the attributes with 
the most potential to represent problems, although it should be emphasised that no 
attribute has a satisfaction score of less than three, the neutral score (neither 
satisfied nor dissatisfied), so there are no absolute problems among the attributes 
scored in the user survey.  
 
 
Mean score gaps  
Attribute 
Importance 
Satisfaction 
Gap 
 Cleanliness of changing areas   
 4.57   
 3.91   
 0.66   
 Water quality in the swimming pool   
 4.58   
 4.00   
 0.58   
 Number of people in the pool   
 4.40   
 3.86   
 0.54   
 Water temperature in the swimming pool   
 4.47   
 3.99   
 0.48   
 Cleanliness of activity spaces   
 4.56   
 4.12   
 0.44   
 
 
Rank gaps  
Attribute 
Importance 
Satisfaction 
Gap 
 Cleanliness of changing areas   
 2   
 14   
 -12   
 Water quality in the swimming pool   
 1   
 11   
 -10   
 Cleanliness of activity spaces   
 3   
 9   
 -6   
 Water temperature in the swimming pool   
 9   
 13   
 -4   
 Value for money of activities   
 4   
 8   
 -4   
 
3.10 
Four attributes feature in both the tables above. The second table demonstrates that 
four of the attributes are the most important to customers. However, most of the 
gaps featured are small compared with other NBS centres, except for the top two 
rank gaps. Cleanliness of the changing areas shows the largest gaps whether 
measured by mean scores or rankings.  The appearance of cleanliness of the 
changing areas at the top of the gap scores is not unusual for sports facilities.  From 
the frequency distributions in the appendix, it is apparent that 14% of respondents 
were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the changing areas (which is low level of 
dissatisfaction), whilst 5% were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of activity spaces 
(Appendix Q12m and n).  This reinforces the fact that there is not a widespread, 
absolute problem with such attributes. There appears to be a relative problem with 
 
7

---

 
the pool according to these respondents, because water quality and temperature and 
the number of people in the pool are also among the largest gaps - however only 
9% or less of customers expressed dissatisfaction with either of these attributes 
(Q12j, h and i).  Other levels of dissatisfaction include 5% for value for money of 
activities (Q12r), 10% for quality of food and drink (Q12l) and 9% for value for 
money of food and drink (Q12s). So any problems are not absolute, but relative - 
the satisfaction scores falling short of the importance scores - and minorities of 
customers are dissatisfied. 
 
 Grid 
analysis 
 
3.11 
The grid analysis reveals three attributes which are clearly in the quadrant for high 
importance and low satisfaction: the cleanliness of changing area, and two pool 
attributes - these are normally the attributes most immediately deserving of 
managerial attention.  Activity charge is also marginally in the quadrant for high 
importance/low satisfaction. Low satisfaction relative to other attributes is also 
evident for the food and drink attributes, number of people in the pool and the car 
parking on site, but these are relatively low in importance too.  They may, however, 
have commercial implications - i.e. constraining income to a greater or lesser extent. 
 
3.12 
Comparison of the centre's satisfaction scores with industry averages, provided by 
the final satisfaction table in Section 5 of this report, shows that the centre is just 
below the industry average overall satisfaction for wet centres, at 4.28 out of 5, and 
below industry average scores for 9 of the 17 individual attributes too.  However, it 
should be noted that different satisfaction scores in different locations will be 
caused not only by real differences in satisfaction but also by differences between 
locations in their generosity of scoring. 
 
8

---

 
 
 
Weaknesses in service attributes, as perceived by customers 
 
3.13  Putting together the results of the gap analysis and grid analysis, the weakest 
attributes are shown in the following table.   
 
 
 
Relatively weak attributes 
Evidence 
Primary 
Cleanliness of changing areas 
Relatively large gaps and relatively high 
weaknesses 
Water temperature in the pool 
in importance 
Water quality in the pool 
Secondary 
Quality of food & drink 
Relatively large gaps; relatively low 
weaknesses 
Value for money of food & drink 
satisfaction but relatively low in 
Quality of car parking 
importance 
Number of people in the pool   
 
 
Strengths in service attributes, as perceived by customers 
 
3.14  Combining the results of the grid analysis and the satisfaction scores, the table 
below summarises the strongest attributes.  Staff and accessibility attributes are in 
the top five satisfaction rankings and four are also in the top ten for importance 
rankings - a desirable correlation.   
 
 
Relatively strong attributes 
Evidence 
Primary 
Activity available at convenient times  
In top five satisfaction scores; 
strengths 
Helpfulness of other staff  
relatively high in importance 
Helpfulness of reception staff  
Standard of coaching/instruction 
Secondary 
Ease of booking 
In top five satisfaction scores but not 
strengths 
high in importance 
 
Main strengths and weaknesses 
 
3.15 
As a result of the analysis above, we conclude that the main strengths, weaknesses 
and factors to watch for at this centre are as shown in the following table. 
 
Strengths 
Staff; two accessibility attributes 
Ones to watch 
Pool attributes; food and drink; car park attribute 
Weaknesses 
Access; finance; cleanliness of changing areas;  
 
 
9

---

 
4.  
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA AND POPULATION STATISTICS 
 
4.1 
The catchment area shown in this map is defined as the area within which 
Wednesbury Leisure Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the 
area within which Wednesbury is the dominant supplier.  On the next page are key 
population statistics for the catchment area. 
Sport England Benchmark Service
Wednesbury Leisure Centre
Pal
Pa f
l r
Pa f
l r
f e
r
Da
D r
Da l
ar a
l s
a t
s o
t
ast n
oon
o
Ki
K ngs
i n
i g  H
ngss
ngs i
 H ll
i
Kings Hill
Wed
We
We n
d esb
n
Wedne
n s
Wednee
Wedne
u
esb ry
bur
Oc
O k
Oc e
k r
e
cke  H
r i
 H l
i l
l
Ocker Hi
Gol
Hi
H ll
i
Hil
Hi  T
ll
ill
illl
ill o
 T
 T p
o
Go d
l s
d  Gre
s Gr
s
e
 Gre
e n
e
o
Ha
H ll End
all
a  End
ll
Gr
G ea
re
r t B
ea
a
eat r
t B
 B
t B idge
r id
i g
d e
g
idge
Chu
Ch
Swa
Sw n
a  Vil
n  Vi
n
la
 Vil g
la
lla e
g
Swan Villa
Key
Catchment
Wednesbury Leisure Centre
Additional material ©Sport England 2009
Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. © Crown Copyright 2003
Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of The Controller of HMSO
Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service
Unauthorised reproduction infringes infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings
28/10/2009 Job PE using Mapinfo for Sport England
License numbers C02W 0003683 & 10003311     ©The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved
 
 
10

---

Wednesbury Leisure Centre
confirmation of catchment data used
% population 11 - 19
14.51
% population 20 - 59
60.22
% population 60+
25.27
% population non-white
16.95
% population groups NS-SEC 67
30.8
% population <60 disabled
11.23
% population 60+ disabled
13.63
total residents competing
23383
total residents non-competing
32937
difference
9554
11

---

---

Key Indicators
% visits 11-19 years ÷ % catchment population 11-19 years
2.95
2.95
2.00
1.86
1.25
1.15
1.07
1.02
1.00
0.89
0.91
0.83
0.69
0.59
0.61
0.56
0.56
0.38
0.25
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.75
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits from social classes 6 & 7  ÷ % catchment population in social classes 6 & 7
1.23
1.16
1.06
1.08
1.00
0.95
0.86
0.87
0.85
0.68
0.65
0.63
0.58
0.49
0.50
0.42
0.38
0.40
0.17
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.50
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.59
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
13

---

% visits from black, Asian & other ethnic groups ÷ % catchment population in same 
ethnic groups
18.73
15.00
10.00
6.74
6.10
5.00
3.43
2.92
2.45
1.60
1.85
1.99
0.99 1.13
1.08
1.04 1.44
1.04 1.38
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.92
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years ÷ % catchment population 60+ years
1.32
1.00
0.92
0.92
0.84
0.71
0.63
0.60
0.60
0.56
0.47
0.50
0.46
0.46
0.48
0.35
0.35
0.31
0.31
0.12
0.09
0.10
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.31
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
14

---

% visits <60 years disabled ÷ % catchment population <60 years disabled
1.24
1.24
1.16
1.12
1.00
0.96
0.91
0.82
0.84
0.71
0.65
0.65
0.58
0.54
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.27
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.48
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Subsidy per visit (£) - 1
-1.71
-1.71
-1.22
0.09
0.01
0.09
0.00
0.36
0.26
1.07
1.12
1.03
0.96
1.72
1.52
1.87
1.77
2.00
4.00
5.70
5.70
6.00
6.75
6.75
8.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.92
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the 
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster.  Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some 
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this proposed CPA indicator includes consideration of estimated central establishment charges where 
the actual charges are zero
15

---

Annual visits per sq. m. (excluding offices)
465
400
316
300
277
243
200
150
127
127
95
100
100
80
86
86
64
62
53
37
40
32
13
19
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 86
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this performance indicator, square metres of indoor space excludes offices and corridors
16

---

 Other important Indicators
% visits 20-59 years ÷ % catchment population 20-59 years
1.48
1.48
1.46
1.40
1.40
1.27
1.23
1.24
1.24
1.21
1.22
1.20
1.20
1.17
1.14
1.15
1.14
1.11
1.07
1.00
0.97
0.83
0.83
0.80
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.35
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits which were first visits
23.08
19.42
20.00
15.00
12.72
11.95
10.93
10.00
9.26
7.51
7.40
5.65
5.29
5.81
5.68
5.00
3.15
3.16
3.33
3.33
2.02
1.11
1.15
1.11
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 5.26
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
17

---

% visits with discount card
93.95
93.95
80.00
70.89
60.58
58.17
60.00
51.55
49.72
51.62
46.67
42.18
37.71
39.77
37.71
40.00
33.03
33.03
29.68
20.00
17.39
16.46
14.29
9.79
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 56.05
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits with discount card for 'disadvantage'
52.45
52.45
40.00
29.76
26.18
21.77
21.71
22.37
20.29
18.83
20.00
16.79
13.96
14.72
11.70
11.75
8.77
9.19
5.08
5.99
1.27
1.27
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 24.21
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
18

---

% visits female
78
78
69
66
68
64
62
64
59
59
60
58
58
52
50
51
51
42
43
40
29
20
11
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 57
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years disabled ÷ % catchment population 60+ years disabled
1.27
1.00
0.72
0.71
0.72
0.50
0.43
0.37
0.39
0.39
0.32
0.24
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.11
0.12
0.07
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.50
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.20
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
19

---

% visits unemployed
12.19
12.19
12.19
11.34
10.00
5.00
3.22
2.91
3.23
3.00
2.11
1.97 2.29
2.29
2.29
1.30
1.39
1.33
0.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.66
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% cost recovery
176
176
161
150
108
98
98
100
90
91
75
76
76
72
68
68
68
54
50
42
39
43
42
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 58
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
20

---

Subsidy per visit (£) - 2
-2.41
-2.41
-2.00
-1.22
0.09
-0.14
0.00
0.29
0.26
0.09
0.98
1.12
0.98
0.96
1.72
1.52
1.87
1.77
2.00
4.00
5.70
5.70
6.00
6.75
6.75
8.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.97
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the 
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster.  Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some 
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this indicator includes consideration of actual central establishment charges whether they are zero or 
positive
Subsidy per sq. m. (£)
-268
-268
-128
9
-20
23
9
0
85
55
17
73
56
155
150
122
117
272
236
272
500
1004
1000
1500
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 156
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the best 
score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster.  Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some of the 
75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
21

---

Subsidy per resident (£)
-36.36
-36.36
-25.24
-20.00
-4.20
0.79
1.84
0.79
0.68
0.00
5.62
6.56
6.37
6.30
11.98
11.98
11.26
17.45
20.08
20.00
33.26
33.26
40.00
44.53
60.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 16.11
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
The catchment population used for this indicator allows for competing facilities nearby. This is different from previous 
NBS reports.
Total operating cost per visit (£)
1.85
1.98
1.85
2.00
2.68
2.78
2.88
3.18
3.54
3.70
4.11
4.00
4.50
4.28
5.17
5.19
5.73
5.72
6.00
8.00
9.94
9.94
10.00
11.69
11.69
12.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 4.74
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best 
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
22

---

Total operating cost per sq. m. (£)
35
118
147
134
110
246
296
254
262
300
362
332
441
444
444
524
500
630
739
1000
1349
1500
1648
2000
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 375
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best 
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Maintenance and repair costs per sq. m. (£)
2
0
4
2
10
9
7
10
8
16
14
18
16
21
33
31
50
65
100
125
125
148
150
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 9
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best 
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
23

---

Energy costs per sq. m. (£)
4
10
10
15
17
21
26
26
35
39
38
38
48
49
48
50
63
72
100
108
140
150
169
200
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 25
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best 
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Total income per visit (£)
5.59
5.59
5.40
5.00
4.84
4.57
4.25
4.22
4.00
3.70
3.70
3.34
3.34
3.18
3.00
2.76
2.80
2.52
1.95
1.98
2.00
1.78
1.74
1.74
1.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.77
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
24

---

Total income per sq. m. (£)
1387
1000
644
643
624
503
500
336
348
294
278
267
257
209
189
189
142
98
64
78
78
35
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 219
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Direct income per visit (£)
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.00
4.37
3.97
3.89
4.00
3.56
3.28
3.21
3.17
3.00
2.88
2.46
2.46
2.32
2.12
2.00
1.65
1.46
1.30
1.16
1.16
1.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.38
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
25

---

Secondary income per visit (£)
2.37
1.94
2.00
1.50
1.25
0.94
1.00
0.70
0.52
0.50
0.39
0.33
0.36
0.23
0.16
0.15
0.06
0.11
0.01
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.39
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Annual visits per sq. m. (including offices)
436
400
300
257
231
200
160
120
130
113
100
80
87
77
77
59
69
53
52
33
37
29
13
16
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 79
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this indicator, total indoor floor space is used
26

---

% visits casual, instead of organised
97
97
91
91
82
80
80
76
78
78
73
73
70
65
59
60
56
47
40
19
20
16
16
13
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 66
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Weekly number of people visiting the facility, as % of catchment population 11+
42.06
40.00
33.14
30.00
24.85
22.56
20.00
13.43
13.73
11.88
12.42
9.82
9.54
10.00
8.23
9.26
6.80
5.18
6.06
5.55
1.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-10.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10.46
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
27

---

Satisfaction and importance scores: by attribute
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
Accessibility
a.
Activity available at convenient times
5 4.53 377
1 4.37 368
4
0.16
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.38 353
3 4.33 331
11
0.05
c.
The activity charge/fee
11 4.46 368
10 4.11 362
1
0.35
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.42 366
6 4.28 356
6
0.14
Quality of facilities/services
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
g.
Quality of equipment
10 4.47 306
7 4.20 276
3
0.27
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.58 198
11 4.00 292
-10
0.58
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
9 4.47 199
13 3.99 290
-4
0.48
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.40 197
15 3.86 289
-2
0.54
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 348
12 4.00 303
3
0.18
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.86 311
17 3.69 272
0
0.17
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.57 367
14 3.91 352
-12
0.66
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.56 364
9 4.12 346
-6
0.44
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
7 4.52 374
4 4.31 374
3
0.21
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
8 4.51 374
2 4.34 365
6
0.17
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.52 358
5 4.31 148
1
0.21
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
4 4.55 371
8 4.14 363
-4
0.41
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.16 318
16 3.77 290
0
0.39
Other attributes *
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.28 374
* The other attribute(s) listed at the end of the table have either the satisfaction or importance scores but not both.  This 
is for logical reasons - e.g. Overall satisfaction with visit does not have an importance score; no satisfaction score for 
pool attributes if there is no pool at the centre.  Therefore such attributes do not appear in the subsequent tables of 
'gaps'.
28

---

Satisfaction and importance scores: by mean gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.57 367
14 3.91 352
-12
0.66
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.58 198
11 4.00 292
-10
0.58
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.40 197
15 3.86 289
-2
0.54
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
9 4.47 199
13 3.99 290
-4
0.48
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.56 364
9 4.12 346
-6
0.44
r.
Value for money of activities
4 4.55 371
8 4.14 363
-4
0.41
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.16 318
16 3.77 290
0
0.39
c.
The activity charge/fee
11 4.46 368
10 4.11 362
1
0.35
g.
Quality of equipment
10 4.47 306
7 4.20 276
3
0.27
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
7 4.52 374
4 4.31 374
3
0.21
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.52 358
5 4.31 148
1
0.21
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 348
12 4.00 303
3
0.18
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
8 4.51 374
2 4.34 365
6
0.17
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.86 311
17 3.69 272
0
0.17
a.
Activity available at convenient times
5 4.53 377
1 4.37 368
4
0.16
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.42 366
6 4.28 356
6
0.14
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.38 353
3 4.33 331
11
0.05
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
29

---

Satisfaction and importance scores: by rank gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.57 367
14 3.91 352
-12
0.66
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.58 198
11 4.00 292
-10
0.58
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.56 364
9 4.12 346
-6
0.44
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
9 4.47 199
13 3.99 290
-4
0.48
r.
Value for money of activities
4 4.55 371
8 4.14 363
-4
0.41
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.40 197
15 3.86 289
-2
0.54
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.86 311
17 3.69 272
0
0.17
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.16 318
16 3.77 290
0
0.39
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
18 0.00
0
18 0.00
0
0
0.00
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.52 358
5 4.31 148
1
0.21
c.
The activity charge/fee
11 4.46 368
10 4.11 362
1
0.35
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
7 4.52 374
4 4.31 374
3
0.21
g.
Quality of equipment
10 4.47 306
7 4.20 276
3
0.27
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 348
12 4.00 303
3
0.18
a.
Activity available at convenient times
5 4.53 377
1 4.37 368
4
0.16
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
8 4.51 374
2 4.34 365
6
0.17
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.42 366
6 4.28 356
6
0.14
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.38 353
3 4.33 331
11
0.05
30

---

Centre satisfaction scores compared with industry average scores
centre
centre
industry
industry
score
rank
mean
rank
Activity available at convenient times
4.37
1
4.47
2
Ease of booking
4.33
3
4.32
5
The activity charge/fee
4.11
10
4.18
8
The range of activities available
4.28
6
4.18
8
Quality of equipment
4.20
7
4.11
12
Water quality in the swimming pool
4.00
11
4.22
7
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3.99
13
4.15
10
Number of people in the pool
3.86
15
4.12
11
Quality of car parking on site
4.00
12
3.95
14
Quality of food and drink
3.69
17
3.61
17
Cleanliness of changing areas
3.91
14
3.76
15
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4.12
9
3.97
13
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.31
4
4.39
3
Helpfulness of other staff
4.34
2
4.35
4
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.31
5
4.51
1
Value for money of activities
4.14
8
4.24
6
Value for money of food/drink
3.77
16
3.67
16
Overall satisfaction with visit
4.28
4.30
 
N.B. Industry average scores for sports hall attributes are not included due to a small 
sample of wet sites having a sports hall
31

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 1: 
 
USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 
32

---

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
1 ( 0.3% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
12 ( 3.2% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
152 ( 40.0% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
0 ( 0.0% )
Gymnastics
2 ( 0.5% )
Basketball or volleyball
1 ( 0.3% )
Other physical activity
1 ( 0.3% )
Swimming or aqua fit
170 ( 44.7% )
A spectator
36 ( 9.5% )
Another type of activity
5 ( 1.3% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
170 ( 51.1% )
Gym/fitness centre
162 ( 48.6% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
1 ( 0.3% )
Smaller hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Another part of the facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
47
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
104 ( 30.7% )
As an individual user
223 ( 65.8% )
As a member of a club or team
6 ( 1.8% )
Other
6 ( 1.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
41
33

---

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
20 ( 5.3% )
No
360 ( 94.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
200 ( 52.8% )
2
75 ( 19.8% )
3
40 ( 10.6% )
4
40 ( 10.6% )
5
18 ( 4.7% )
6
3 ( 0.8% )
7
3 ( 0.8% )
8 plus
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
215 ( 56.7% )
6 to 10
80 ( 21.1% )
11 to 15
41 ( 10.8% )
16 to 20
38 ( 10.0% )
21 plus
5 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
34

---

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
213 ( 56.1% )
No
167 ( 43.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
92 ( 43.2% )
Other
121 ( 56.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
167
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
254 ( 66.8% )
Straight from work, school or college
103 ( 27.1% )
Other e.g. from shopping
23 ( 6.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
311 ( 81.8% )
Public transport
36 ( 9.5% )
Walked all the way
29 ( 7.6% )
Other, including cycle
4 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
35

---

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
94 ( 24.7% )
6-10 minutes
141 ( 37.1% )
11-15 minutes
87 ( 22.9% )
16-20 minutes
26 ( 6.8% )
21-30 minutes
18 ( 4.7% )
31-45 minutes
11 ( 2.9% )
Over 45 minutes
3 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
193 ( 52.4% )
Fairly satisfied
138 ( 37.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 6.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 2.4% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 1.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
172 ( 52.0% )
Fairly satisfied
107 ( 32.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
45 ( 13.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.6% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
49
36

---

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
144 ( 39.8% )
Fairly satisfied
141 ( 39.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
58 ( 16.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 3.0% )
Very dissatisfied
8 ( 2.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
18
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
158 ( 44.4% )
Fairly satisfied
150 ( 42.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
42 ( 11.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
24
Q12e Satisfaction - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
380
37

---

Q12f Satisfaction - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
380
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
120 ( 43.5% )
Fairly satisfied
102 ( 37.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
46 ( 16.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.2% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
104
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
97 ( 33.2% )
Fairly satisfied
124 ( 42.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
50 ( 17.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
17 ( 5.8% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
88
38

---

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
91 ( 31.4% )
Fairly satisfied
126 ( 43.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
57 ( 19.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 3.8% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
90
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
80 ( 27.7% )
Fairly satisfied
124 ( 42.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
59 ( 20.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
17 ( 5.9% )
Very dissatisfied
9 ( 3.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
91
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
107 ( 35.3% )
Fairly satisfied
124 ( 40.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
43 ( 14.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
23 ( 7.6% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
77
39

---

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
60 ( 22.1% )
Fairly satisfied
100 ( 36.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
86 ( 31.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
19 ( 7.0% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 2.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
108
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
121 ( 34.4% )
Fairly satisfied
144 ( 40.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
38 ( 10.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
33 ( 9.4% )
Very dissatisfied
16 ( 4.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
28
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
129 ( 37.3% )
Fairly satisfied
152 ( 43.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
47 ( 13.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
12 ( 3.5% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 1.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
34
40

---

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
185 ( 49.5% )
Fairly satisfied
139 ( 37.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
37 ( 9.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
8 ( 2.1% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
173 ( 47.4% )
Fairly satisfied
152 ( 41.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
34 ( 9.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
3 ( 0.8% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
15
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
68 ( 45.9% )
Fairly satisfied
61 ( 41.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 11.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.7% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
232
41

---

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
137 ( 37.7% )
Fairly satisfied
162 ( 44.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
46 ( 12.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
14 ( 3.9% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
68 ( 23.4% )
Fairly satisfied
118 ( 40.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
79 ( 27.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
18 ( 6.2% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 2.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
90
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
158 ( 42.2% )
Fairly satisfied
174 ( 46.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
34 ( 9.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.1% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
42

---

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
226 ( 59.9% )
Fairly important
130 ( 34.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
17 ( 4.5% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
174 ( 49.3% )
Fairly important
144 ( 40.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
31 ( 8.8% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 0.8% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
27
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
214 ( 58.2% )
Fairly important
120 ( 32.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
28 ( 7.6% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 0.8% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
43

---

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
193 ( 52.7% )
Fairly important
140 ( 38.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
29 ( 7.9% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
Q13e Importance - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very important
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly important
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
380
Q13f Importance - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very important
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly important
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
380
44

---

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
178 ( 58.2% )
Fairly important
99 ( 32.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
26 ( 8.5% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
74
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
132 ( 66.7% )
Fairly important
55 ( 27.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
7 ( 3.5% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
182
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
115 ( 57.8% )
Fairly important
70 ( 35.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 5.0% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.5% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
181
45

---

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
106 ( 53.8% )
Fairly important
71 ( 36.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
14 ( 7.1% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 2.0% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
183
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
141 ( 40.5% )
Fairly important
139 ( 39.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
61 ( 17.5% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.4% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
32
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
87 ( 28.0% )
Fairly important
116 ( 37.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
90 ( 28.9% )
Fairly unimportant
14 ( 4.5% )
Very unimportant
4 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
69
46

---

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
254 ( 69.2% )
Fairly important
87 ( 23.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
14 ( 3.8% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.4% )
Very unimportant
7 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
243 ( 66.8% )
Fairly important
94 ( 25.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
18 ( 4.9% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.4% )
Very unimportant
4 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
16
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
226 ( 60.4% )
Fairly important
125 ( 33.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
16 ( 4.3% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.1% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
47

---

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
223 ( 59.6% )
Fairly important
127 ( 34.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
18 ( 4.8% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.1% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
225 ( 62.8% )
Fairly important
103 ( 28.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
26 ( 7.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
4 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
22
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
237 ( 63.9% )
Fairly important
108 ( 29.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
21 ( 5.7% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.1% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
48

---

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
136 ( 42.8% )
Fairly important
113 ( 35.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
60 ( 18.9% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 0.9% )
Very unimportant
6 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
62
Q14 Gender.
Male
165 ( 43.4% )
Female
215 ( 56.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
320 ( 84.4% )
Mixed
14 ( 3.7% )
Asian or Asian British
34 ( 9.0% )
Black or Black British
11 ( 2.9% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
49

---

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
33 ( 8.7% )
No
347 ( 91.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
40 ( 10.8% )
20 to 59
300 ( 81.3% )
60 plus
29 ( 7.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
190 ( 50.5% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
78 ( 20.7% )
On government work training programme
0 ( 0.0% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
21 ( 5.6% )
Retired - company / personal pension
13 ( 3.5% )
Retired - state pension only
7 ( 1.9% )
Temporarily unable to work
3 ( 0.8% )
Permanently unable to work
3 ( 0.8% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
7 ( 1.9% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
3 ( 0.8% )
In full-time education (school)
18 ( 4.8% )
Full-time student (college/university)
24 ( 6.4% )
Never worked
9 ( 2.4% )
None of these
0 ( 0.0% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
4
50

---

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
145 ( 44.6% )
3
44 ( 13.5% )
4
20 ( 6.2% )
5
57 ( 17.5% )
6 & 7
59 ( 18.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
55
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
WS10
110
( 30.4% )
30.4
B71
84
( 23.2% )
53.6
DY4
52
( 14.4% )
68.0
B70
40
( 11.0% )
79.0
WV14
14
( 3.9% )
82.9
WS5
11
( 3.0% )
85.9
WS1O
10
( 2.8% )
88.7
B69
7
( 1.9% )
90.6
WS2
5
( 1.4% )
92.0
B68
4
( 1.1% )
93.1
B43
3
( 0.8% )
93.9
DY5
2
( 0.6% )
94.5
WS1
2
( 0.6% )
95.0
WV1
2
( 0.6% )
95.6
WV10
2
( 0.6% )
96.1
B11
1
( 0.3% )
96.4
B16
1
( 0.3% )
96.7
B24
1
( 0.3% )
97.0
B44
1
( 0.3% )
97.2
B61
1
( 0.3% )
97.5
B62
1
( 0.3% )
97.8
B64
1
( 0.3% )
98.1
B67
1
( 0.3% )
98.3
DY6
1
( 0.3% )
98.6
W35
1
( 0.3% )
98.9
WR10
1
( 0.3% )
99.2
51

---

WS14
1
( 0.3% )
99.4
WS1D
1
( 0.3% )
99.7
WV13
1
( 0.3% )
100.0
Missing/Not applicable
18
52

---

Document Outline

• Wednesbury1109 Report v10
• Wednesbury1109 bar chart report
• Wednesbury1109 satisfaction report
• Wednesbury1109 industry means report
• 3 APPENDIX 1
• Wednesbury1109 frequencies report

---