NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS
AND LEISURE CENTRES

FACILITY REPORT
FOR
SMETHWICK SWIMMING 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 SMETHWICK SWIMMING
4
CENTRE

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA AND POPULATION STATISTICS
10

5.
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR SMETHWICK
12
SWIMMING CENTRE
•  KEY INDICATORS
•  OTHER IMPORTANT INDICATORS
•  SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE TABLES

APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
32

NBS REPORT FOR SMETHWICK SWIMMING 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 Smethwick
Swimming Centre, which is run by 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 Smethwick Swimming 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 348 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
Smethwick Swimming 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 2,820m2 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 2,385m2 of usable space. The catchment area has a high proportion (23.73%)
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 Smethwick 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: Smethwick 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 348 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 (247,971 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: Smethwick 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 was the most frequently stated main activity by survey respondents,
followed by using fitness equipment. These two activities accounted for 81% of
the main activities undertaken during the survey period. Given the distribution of
activities undertaken, it is not surprising that the pool was the most utilised area 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 vast
majority of activities undertaken were casual (81%) rather than instructor led. This
finding is also consistent with the nature of swimmers and gym/fitness centre users
who form the bulk of the sample. 60% of the respondents had some form of leisure
card which gave them reduced price admission to the centre. 44% 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 SMETHWICK SWIMMING
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
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
NS-SEC 6&7
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Ethnic minorities
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
60+ years
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Disabled <60 years
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Subsidy per visit
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Visits per m2
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd

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
One of the key indicator scores, an access indicator, is in the top quartile. One,
however, for 11-19 years, is in its bottom quartile. The relatively weak access
performance is the result of 11-19 years being 14% of the catchment population,
but only 7% of visits to the centre in the period of the NBS user survey. Of the two
efficiency indicators, subsidy per visit performs at the bottom quartile relative to
other similar facilities.

Access

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Access indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Females
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
11-19 years
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
20-59 years
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
60+ years
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
NS-SEC 6&7
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Ethnic minorities
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Disabled <60 years
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Disabled 60+
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
Unemployed
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Discount card holders
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Disadvantaged card holders
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
First visits
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%

3.6
When considering the wider set of access indicators, rather than just the five in the
key indicators, the picture is of rather strong access performance. It is important to
stress that not all the access groups identified are likely to be important to a social
inclusion agenda.  Six of the groups which might be seen as important to social
inclusion are located at the 50% benchmark level or above (60+ years, NS-SEC
6&7, disabled under 60, disabled 60+, the unemployed, and disadvantaged card
holders), of which three are in the top quartiles. However, two which are relevant to
social inclusion are below their 50% benchmark performance levels (11-19 years
and ethnic minorities). It is relevant to note that benchmarks for ethnic minorities
are quite high. Females are in the bottom quartile but they comprise 49% of the
total visits – the benchmarks for this indicator are very high in wet facilities. Three
other indicators (20-59 years, discount card holders and first visits) are in their top
quartiles or  at the 75% benchmark, 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
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Cost recovery
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Subsidy per m2
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Subsidy per resident
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
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
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Energy cost per m2
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Income per visit
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Income per m2
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
Direct income per visit
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
25%
Secondary income per visit
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd
3rd

3.7
Financial performance is rather weak relative to the benchmarks, with cost recovery
and two subsidy indicators at or below their 25% benchmark levels. 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 weak operating costs performance (i.e. high costs) and relatively low
income per visit and per square metre. Direct income per visit is low, at its 25%
benchmark level. It is relevant to note that satisfaction with entrance charges and
value for money of activities are eighth and fourth in the satisfaction rankings, with
average customer scores of 4.44 and 4.51 out of 5 respectively - the latter is also
among the centre's strengths - see below. Together these considerations suggest that
the activity prices are not near to the limit of acceptability for customers.
Maintenance and repair costs per square metre is its top quartile (i.e. low costs), but
this 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
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Weekly number of people
visiting
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd
2nd

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 performs at the third quartile level,
the simple product of a reasonably high number of annual visits for a centre of this

6

size. However, the weekly number of people visiting performs at the second
quartile, suggesting a relatively weak market penetration in the local catchment
population. The percentage of visits which are casual (81%) is very high 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
4.84
4.14
0.70
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4.75
4.13
0.62
Number of people in the pool
4.47
3.94
0.53
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4.81
4.28
0.53
Quality of car parking on site
4.07
3.56
0.51

Rank gaps
Attribute
Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Cleanliness of changing areas
2
12
-10
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3
11
-8
Cleanliness of activity spaces
6
13
-7
Water quality in the swimming pool
1
5
-4
Quality of car parking on site
15
17
-2

3.10
Four attributes feature in both the tables above. The second table demonstrates that
four of the attributes are among the most important to customers. However, it
should be noted that most of the gaps featured are small except for the first two
rank gaps, and the water quality in the pool is actually among the centre's strengths
- see below. Cleanliness of the changing areas shows the largest gaps 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 12% of respondents were
dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the changing areas, whilst 9% were dissatisfied
with the cleanliness of activity spaces (Appendix Q12m and n) - these are relatively
low levels of dissatisfaction compared with other wet facilities. There appears to

7

be a relative problem with 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 3%, 6% and 9% respectively of customers were
dissatisfied with these attributes (Q12h, i and j). Other higher levels of
dissatisfaction include 13% for quality of food and drink (Q12l), 12% for value for
money of food and drink (Q12s) and 22% for quality of car parking on site (Q12k)
- although it should be noted that quality of car parking on site was at the bottom of
the importance rankings by customers. 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 two attributes which are clearly in the quadrant for high
importance and low satisfaction: the two cleanliness attributes - these are normally
the attributes most immediately deserving of managerial attention. Water
temperature in the pool 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, car parking on site, and the number of people in the pool, 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 well
above the industry average overall satisfaction for wet centres, at 4.63 out of 5, and
exceeds industry average scores for 14 of the 17 individual attributes. The main
exception is car park attribute, where the centre's score lags significantly behind

8

industry average. 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.

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
Cleanliness of activity spaces
in importance
Water temperature 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.  A mixture of attributes are in the top
five satisfaction rankings and three are also in the top five for importance rankings -
a desirable correlation.

Relatively strong attributes
Evidence
Primary
Helpfulness of reception staff
In top five satisfaction scores; very
strengths
Helpfulness of other staff
high in importance
Water quality in the swimming pool
Secondary
Standard of coaching/instruction
In top five satisfaction scores; medium
strengths
Value for money of activities
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
Access; staff; water quality in the pool; value for money of
activities
Ones to watch
Pool attributes; car park; food and drink
Weaknesses Finance;
cleanliness

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
Smethwick Swimming Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the
area within which Smethwick is the dominant supplier. On the next page are key
population statistics for the catchment area.
Sport England Benchmark Service
Smethwick Sports Centre
Sme
Sm
Sm t
ee h
t w
h i
w
hwc
i k
c
Smethwiic
Bear
B
w
ear o
w o
o d
o
Key
Catchment
Smethwick Sports 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

Smethwick Swimming Centre
confirmation of catchment data used
% population 11 - 19
14.21
% population 20 - 59
62.41
% population 60+
23.37
% population non-white
31.6
% population groups NS-SEC 67
23.73
% population <60 disabled
10.59
% population 60+ disabled
12.17
total residents competing
40613
total residents non-competing
51045
difference
10432
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 = 0.53
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 = 1.15
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 = 1.16
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 = 0.54
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 = 0.74
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 = 2.65
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 = 104
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 = 1.28
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 = 8.05
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 = 60.23
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 = 26.22
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 = 49
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 = 0.29
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 = 6.96
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 = 59
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 = 1.76
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 = 155
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 = 10.73
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 = 4.31
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 = 379
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 = 8
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 = 48
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 = 2.56
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 = 225
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 = 2.17
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 = 88
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 = 81
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 = 6.63
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
9 4.69 342
6 4.47 337
3
0.22
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.34 268
9 4.37 243
5 -0.03
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.61 334
8 4.44 330
2
0.17
d.
The range of activities available
11 4.53 341
7 4.45 334
4
0.08
Quality of facilities/services
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.50 223
10 4.30 182
2
0.20
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.88 236
5 4.49 278
-4
0.39
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.81 237
11 4.28 279
-8
0.53
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.47 236
15 3.94 278
-2
0.53
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.07 289
17 3.56 233
-2
0.51
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.66 200
16 3.71 165
1 -0.05
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
2 4.84 329
12 4.14 323
-10
0.70
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
6 4.75 331
13 4.13 315
-7
0.62
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
4 4.78 345
1 4.74 337
3
0.04
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
5 4.76 342
3 4.63 323
2
0.13
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
7 4.74 293
2 4.68
96
5
0.06
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
8 4.74 338
4 4.51 331
4
0.23
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.00 204
14 3.97 180
2
0.03
Other attributes *
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
0.00
0
N/A
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
0.00
0
N/A
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.63 348
* 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 4.84 329
12 4.14 323
-10
0.70
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
6 4.75 331
13 4.13 315
-7
0.62
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.47 236
15 3.94 278
-2
0.53
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.81 237
11 4.28 279
-8
0.53
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.07 289
17 3.56 233
-2
0.51
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.88 236
5 4.49 278
-4
0.39
r.
Value for money of activities
8 4.74 338
4 4.51 331
4
0.23
a.
Activity available at convenient times
9 4.69 342
6 4.47 337
3
0.22
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.50 223
10 4.30 182
2
0.20
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.61 334
8 4.44 330
2
0.17
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
5 4.76 342
3 4.63 323
2
0.13
d.
The range of activities available
11 4.53 341
7 4.45 334
4
0.08
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
7 4.74 293
2 4.68
96
5
0.06
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
4 4.78 345
1 4.74 337
3
0.04
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.00 204
14 3.97 180
2
0.03
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.34 268
9 4.37 243
5 -0.03
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.66 200
16 3.71 165
1 -0.05
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 4.84 329
12 4.14 323
-10
0.70
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
3 4.81 237
11 4.28 279
-8
0.53
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
6 4.75 331
13 4.13 315
-7
0.62
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
1 4.88 236
5 4.49 278
-4
0.39
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.07 289
17 3.56 233
-2
0.51
j.
Number of people in the pool
13 4.47 236
15 3.94 278
-2
0.53
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.66 200
16 3.71 165
1 -0.05
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 4.00 204
14 3.97 180
2
0.03
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
5 4.76 342
3 4.63 323
2
0.13
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.50 223
10 4.30 182
2
0.20
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.61 334
8 4.44 330
2
0.17
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
4 4.78 345
1 4.74 337
3
0.04
a.
Activity available at convenient times
9 4.69 342
6 4.47 337
3
0.22
r.
Value for money of activities
8 4.74 338
4 4.51 331
4
0.23
d.
The range of activities available
11 4.53 341
7 4.45 334
4
0.08
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
7 4.74 293
2 4.68
96
5
0.06
b.
Ease of booking
14 4.34 268
9 4.37 243
5 -0.03
30

Centre satisfaction scores compared with industry average scores
centre
centre
industry
industry
score
rank
mean
rank
Activity available at convenient times
4.47
6
4.47
2
Ease of booking
4.37
9
4.32
5
The activity charge/fee
4.44
8
4.18
8
The range of activities available
4.45
7
4.18
8
Quality of equipment
4.30
10
4.11
12
Water quality in the swimming pool
4.49
5
4.22
7
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4.28
11
4.15
10
Number of people in the pool
3.94
15
4.12
11
Quality of car parking on site
3.56
17
3.95
14
Quality of food and drink
3.71
16
3.61
17
Cleanliness of changing areas
4.14
12
3.76
15
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4.13
13
3.97
13
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.74
1
4.39
3
Helpfulness of other staff
4.63
3
4.35
4
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.68
2
4.51
1
Value for money of activities
4.51
4
4.24
6
Value for money of food/drink
3.97
14
3.67
16
Overall satisfaction with visit
4.63
4.30

31

APPENDIX 1:

USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
32

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
0 ( 0.0% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
8 ( 2.3% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
91 ( 26.1% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
0 ( 0.0% )
Gymnastics
1 ( 0.3% )
Basketball or volleyball
0 ( 0.0% )
Other physical activity
0 ( 0.0% )
Swimming or aqua fit
200 ( 57.5% )
A spectator
38 ( 10.9% )
Another type of activity
10 ( 2.9% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
200 ( 68.0% )
Gym/fitness centre
94 ( 32.0% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Smaller hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Another part of the facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
54
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
55 ( 18.6% )
As an individual user
239 ( 81.0% )
As a member of a club or team
0 ( 0.0% )
Other
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
53
33

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
28 ( 8.0% )
No
320 ( 92.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
162 ( 46.6% )
2
77 ( 22.1% )
3
65 ( 18.7% )
4
20 ( 5.7% )
5
12 ( 3.4% )
6
5 ( 1.4% )
7
7 ( 2.0% )
8 plus
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
169 ( 49.0% )
6 to 10
75 ( 21.7% )
11 to 15
55 ( 15.9% )
16 to 20
31 ( 9.0% )
21 plus
15 ( 4.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
34

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
209 ( 60.2% )
No
138 ( 39.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
91 ( 43.5% )
Other
118 ( 56.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
139
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
267 ( 76.7% )
Straight from work, school or college
57 ( 16.4% )
Other e.g. from shopping
24 ( 6.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
236 ( 68.0% )
Public transport
38 ( 11.0% )
Walked all the way
64 ( 18.4% )
Other, including cycle
9 ( 2.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
35

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
123 ( 35.3% )
6-10 minutes
104 ( 29.9% )
11-15 minutes
61 ( 17.5% )
16-20 minutes
35 ( 10.1% )
21-30 minutes
12 ( 3.4% )
31-45 minutes
10 ( 2.9% )
Over 45 minutes
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
194 ( 57.6% )
Fairly satisfied
117 ( 34.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
18 ( 5.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.1% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
139 ( 57.2% )
Fairly satisfied
59 ( 24.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
43 ( 17.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
105
36

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
188 ( 57.0% )
Fairly satisfied
109 ( 33.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 7.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.1% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
18
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
189 ( 56.6% )
Fairly satisfied
108 ( 32.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
35 ( 10.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.6% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
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
348
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
348
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
99 ( 54.4% )
Fairly satisfied
46 ( 25.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
30 ( 16.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 3.3% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
166
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
170 ( 61.2% )
Fairly satisfied
84 ( 30.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 5.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.5% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
70
38

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
134 ( 48.0% )
Fairly satisfied
110 ( 39.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
18 ( 6.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
14 ( 5.0% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
69
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
94 ( 33.8% )
Fairly satisfied
102 ( 36.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
56 ( 20.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
22 ( 7.9% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
70
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
59 ( 25.3% )
Fairly satisfied
89 ( 38.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
33 ( 14.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
28 ( 12.0% )
Very dissatisfied
24 ( 10.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
115
39

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
50 ( 30.3% )
Fairly satisfied
50 ( 30.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
43 ( 26.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 6.7% )
Very dissatisfied
11 ( 6.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
183
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
156 ( 48.3% )
Fairly satisfied
104 ( 32.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 7.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
29 ( 9.0% )
Very dissatisfied
10 ( 3.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
141 ( 44.8% )
Fairly satisfied
109 ( 34.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
38 ( 12.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
19 ( 6.0% )
Very dissatisfied
8 ( 2.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
33
40

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
267 ( 79.2% )
Fairly satisfied
52 ( 15.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 5.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
234 ( 72.4% )
Fairly satisfied
62 ( 19.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
23 ( 7.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
3 ( 0.9% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
71 ( 74.0% )
Fairly satisfied
19 ( 19.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
6 ( 6.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
252
41

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
208 ( 62.8% )
Fairly satisfied
91 ( 27.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
27 ( 8.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.2% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
75 ( 41.7% )
Fairly satisfied
53 ( 29.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
30 ( 16.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
15 ( 8.3% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 3.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
168
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
232 ( 66.7% )
Fairly satisfied
105 ( 30.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
10 ( 2.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
42

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
250 ( 73.1% )
Fairly important
83 ( 24.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 1.5% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.2% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
148 ( 55.2% )
Fairly important
72 ( 26.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
42 ( 15.7% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.1% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
80
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
229 ( 68.6% )
Fairly important
86 ( 25.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 3.6% )
Fairly unimportant
7 ( 2.1% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
43

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
225 ( 66.0% )
Fairly important
81 ( 23.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
27 ( 7.9% )
Fairly unimportant
7 ( 2.1% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
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
348
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
348
44

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
148 ( 66.4% )
Fairly important
45 ( 20.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
26 ( 11.7% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
125
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
213 ( 90.3% )
Fairly important
19 ( 8.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 1.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
112
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
195 ( 82.3% )
Fairly important
39 ( 16.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 1.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
111
45

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
143 ( 60.6% )
Fairly important
67 ( 28.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
22 ( 9.3% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.3% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
112
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
119 ( 41.2% )
Fairly important
87 ( 30.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
68 ( 23.5% )
Fairly unimportant
14 ( 4.8% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
59
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
57 ( 28.5% )
Fairly important
48 ( 24.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
74 ( 37.0% )
Fairly unimportant
11 ( 5.5% )
Very unimportant
10 ( 5.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
148
46

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
286 ( 86.9% )
Fairly important
38 ( 11.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
19
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
269 ( 81.3% )
Fairly important
44 ( 13.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
15 ( 4.5% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.6% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
278 ( 80.6% )
Fairly important
58 ( 16.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 2.6% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
47

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
269 ( 78.7% )
Fairly important
64 ( 18.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 2.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
234 ( 79.9% )
Fairly important
43 ( 14.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
15 ( 5.1% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
55
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
259 ( 76.6% )
Fairly important
70 ( 20.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
48

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
91 ( 44.6% )
Fairly important
47 ( 23.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
50 ( 24.5% )
Fairly unimportant
8 ( 3.9% )
Very unimportant
8 ( 3.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
144
Q14 Gender.
Male
176 ( 50.6% )
Female
172 ( 49.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
219 ( 63.5% )
Mixed
26 ( 7.5% )
Asian or Asian British
48 ( 13.9% )
Black or Black British
49 ( 14.2% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
49

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
39 ( 11.4% )
No
304 ( 88.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
26 ( 7.5% )
20 to 59
278 ( 79.9% )
60 plus
44 ( 12.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
155 ( 44.9% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
57 ( 16.5% )
On government work training programme
0 ( 0.0% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
20 ( 5.8% )
Retired - company / personal pension
13 ( 3.8% )
Retired - state pension only
12 ( 3.5% )
Temporarily unable to work
3 ( 0.9% )
Permanently unable to work
4 ( 1.2% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
15 ( 4.3% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
9 ( 2.6% )
In full-time education (school)
14 ( 4.1% )
Full-time student (college/university)
18 ( 5.2% )
Never worked
12 ( 3.5% )
None of these
13 ( 3.8% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
50

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
127 ( 44.9% )
3
39 ( 13.8% )
4
19 ( 6.7% )
5
21 ( 7.4% )
6 & 7
77 ( 27.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
65
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
B67
140
( 40.2% )
40.2
B66
78
( 22.4% )
62.6
B68
46
( 13.2% )
75.9
B17
16
( 4.6% )
80.5
B69
16
( 4.6% )
85.1
B16
10
( 2.9% )
87.9
B65
6
( 1.7% )
89.7
B70
6
( 1.7% )
91.4
B71
4
( 1.1% )
92.5
B18
3
( 0.9% )
93.4
B29
3
( 0.9% )
94.3
B21
2
( 0.6% )
94.8
B62
2
( 0.6% )
95.4
DY2
2
( 0.6% )
96.0
DY4
2
( 0.6% )
96.6
B14
1
( 0.3% )
96.8
B20
1
( 0.3% )
97.1
B32
1
( 0.3% )
97.4
B45
1
( 0.3% )
97.7
B63
1
( 0.3% )
98.0
B64
1
( 0.3% )
98.3
B74
1
( 0.3% )
98.6
BY3
1
( 0.3% )
98.9
BY8
1
( 0.3% )
99.1
DY3
1
( 0.3% )
99.4
DY9
1
( 0.3% )
99.7
51

NE24
1
( 0.3% )
100.0
52

Document Outline

smethwick1109 Report v10
smethwick1109 bar chart report
smethwick1109 satisfaction report
smethwick1109 industry means report
3 APPENDIX 1
smethwick1109 frequencies report