NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS 
AND LEISURE CENTRES 
 
 
 
FACILITY REPORT 
FOR 
TIPTON 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 TIPTON SWIMMING CENTRE 
 4 
 
4. 
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA AND POPULATION STATISTICS 
10 
 
5.  
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE  SCORES FOR TIPTON 
12 
SWIMMING CENTRE 
•  KEY INDICATORS 
•  OTHER IMPORTANT INDICATORS 
•  SATISFACTION AND IMPORTANCE TABLES 
 
 
APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 
32 
 
 
 
 

---

 
 

---

 
NBS REPORT FOR TIPTON 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 Tipton 
Swimming 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 Tipton 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 300 users of the centre in 
September and October 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 
Tipton 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 2,856m2 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 2,396m2 of usable space.  The catchment area has a relatively high proportion 
(30.51%) 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 Tipton Swimming Centre 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: Tipton Swimming Centre 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 300 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 (75,566 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: Tipton Swimming Centre 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, 
accounting for 74% 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 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 vast majority of activities undertaken were casual (87%) rather 
than instructor led.  This finding is also consistent with the nature of swimmers 
who form three-quarters of the sample.  Half of the respondents had some form of 
leisure card which gave them reduced price admission to the centre. 79% 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 TIPTON 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 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
60+ years 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Disabled <60 years 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
Subsidy per visit 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Visits per m2 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
 
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 
includes these estimated central establishment charges in the total costs.  In the 
 
4

---

 
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, both access indicators, are in the top quartile.  Two, 
however, for 11-19 years and Black, Asian and other ethnic groups, are at the 
bottom quartile level. These are the results of under-representation of visits by 
these groups during the NBS survey, when compared with their proportions in the 
catchment population. However, it is relevant to note that the benchmarks for 
ethnic minorities are generally very high. Both efficiency indicators also perform in 
the bottom quartile relative to other similar facilities.   
 
 Access 
 
Bottom 
2nd 
3rd 
Top 
Access indicators 
25% 
50% 
75% 
quartile
quartile
quartile 
quartile
Females 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
11-19 years 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
20-59 years 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
75% 
60+ years 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
NS-SEC 6&7 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Ethnic minorities 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Disabled <60 years 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
Disabled 60+ 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Unemployed 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Discount card holders 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
Disadvantaged card holders 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
First visits 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
 
3.6 
When considering the wider set of access indicators, rather than just the five in the 
key indicators, the picture is of stronger 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 above the 50% benchmark level (60+ years, NS-SEC 6&7, 
disabled under 60, disabled 60+, the unemployed, and disadvantaged card holders), 
of which five are in the top quartile. However, two which are relevant to social 
inclusion are below their 25% benchmark performance levels (11-19 years and 
ethnic minorities). Two other indicators are  at or above the 75% benchmark, but 
these groups are not normally considered relevant to social inclusion, because 
people in these groups are not necessarily disadvantaged (20-59 years and first 
visits). 
 
 
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 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Operating cost per m2 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Maintenance & repair cost per m2 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Energy cost per m2 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
3rd 
Income per visit 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Income per m2 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Direct income per visit 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
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 constrain this financial performance are low income and low number 
of visits - see below. It is relevant to note that satisfaction with entrance charges 
and value for money of activities are eleventh and eighth in the satisfaction 
rankings, with average customer scores of 4.35 and 4.42 out of 5 respectively. 
Maintenance and repair costs per square metre performs particularly well (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 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
% of visits that are casual 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Top 
Weekly number of people 
visiting 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 
 
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 the weekly number of people 
visiting perform at the bottom quartile level, suggesting that the relatively low 
number of annual visits may partly be attributed to the weak market penetration in 
the local catchment population. The percentage of visits which are casual (87%) 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. 
 
6

---

 
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. One attribute has a satisfaction score of 
less than three, the neutral score (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) – quality of car 
parking on site.  45% of respondents giving this attribute a score expressed 
dissatisfaction with it, and 80% of respondents had travelled by car. 
 
 
Mean score gaps  
Attribute 
Importance 
Satisfaction 
Gap 
 Quality of car parking on site   
 4.18   
 2.86   
 1.32   
 Cleanliness of changing areas   
 4.90   
 4.15   
 0.75   
 Cleanliness of activity spaces   
 4.87   
 4.39   
 0.48   
 Activity available at convenient times   
 4.63   
 4.28   
 0.35   
 Value for money of activities   
 4.75   
 4.42   
 0.33   
 
 
Rank gaps  
Attribute 
Importance 
Satisfaction 
Gap 
 Cleanliness of changing areas   
 1   
 13   
 -12   
 Cleanliness of activity spaces   
 3   
 10   
 -7   
 Value for money of activities   
 5   
 8   
 -3   
 Quality of car parking on site   
 15   
 17   
 -2   
 The activity charge/fee   
 9   
 11   
 -2   
 
3.10 
Four attributes feature in both the tables above. The second table demonstrates that 
three of the attributes are among the most important to customers. However, it 
should be noted that most of the gaps featured are not big by industry standards, 
except for the top mean score gap and rank gap, and four of these are actually 
among the centre's strengths according to grid analysis. Quality of car parking 
shows the largest gaps measured by mean scores whilst cleanliness of the changing 
areas shows the largest gaps measured by rankings. From the frequency 
distributions in the appendix, it is apparent that nearly half of respondents were 
dissatisfied with the quality of car park (Q12k), with 40% of these customers being 
very dissatisfied - a significant level of dissatisfaction which will warrant some 
investigation, as this could be contributing to the low number of visits to the centre. 
Meanwhile, only about 9% and 3% respectively of customers have expressed 
dissatisfaction with the cleanliness of the changing areas and activity spaces 
(Appendix Q12m and n) - these are low levels of dissatisfaction especially for wet 
sites. 7% or less of customers were dissatisfied with the other featured attributes 
(Q12a, c and r). This reinforces the fact that there is not a widespread, absolute 
problem with most attributes. Other higher levels of dissatisfaction include 13% for 
 
7

---

 
quality of food and drink (Q12l), and 15% for value for money of food and drink 
(Q12s). 
 
 Grid 
analysis 
 
3.11  The grid analysis reveals only one attribute which is in the quadrant for high 
importance and low satisfaction: the cleanliness of changing areas - this would 
normally be the attribute most deserving of managerial attention.  Low satisfaction 
relative to other attributes is also evident for the food and drink attributes, 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 well 
above the industry average overall satisfaction for wet centres, at 4.52 out of 5, and 
exceeds industry average scores for 12 of the 17 individual attributes.  The main 
exception is car park attribute, where the centre's score lags significantly behind the 
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. 
 
 
 
8

---

 
 
 
Relatively weak attributes 
Evidence 
Primary 
Quality of car parking  
Relatively the largest rank gap; 
weaknesses 
 
absolutely low satisfaction but relatively 
low in importance 
Secondary 
Cleanliness of changing areas  
Relatively large gaps; relatively high in 
weaknesses 
 
importance  
Tertiary 
Quality of food & drink 
Relatively low satisfaction but relatively 
weaknesses 
Value for money of food & drink 
low in importance 
 
 
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 quality attributes are in the top 
five satisfaction rankings and two are also in the top four for importance rankings - 
a desirable correlation.   
 
 
Relatively strong attributes 
Evidence 
Primary 
Helpfulness of reception staff  
In top five satisfaction scores; 
strengths 
Helpfulness of other staff  
relatively high in importance 
Water quality in the swimming pool  
Water temperature in the swimming pool 
Secondary 
Standard of coaching/instruction 
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 Access; 
staff; pool attributes 
Ones to watch 
Cleanliness of changing areas; food and drink attributes 
Weaknesses Finance; 
utilisation; car park attribute 
 
 
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 Tipton 
Swimming Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the area within 
which Tipton Swimming Centre is the dominant supplier.  On the next page are key 
population statistics for the catchment area. 
Sport England Benchmark Service
Tipton Swim Centre
Oc
O ker
c
Ock
Oc e
k  H
kerr
ker i
 H ll
i
Ocker H l
i l
lll
Ti
T pt
i
on G
pt
r
on G e
r e
e n
e
Ti
T pt
i
on
pt
pton
Du
D d
Du l
d e
l y
e
udle  P
y o
 P
 P r
oo t
r
Dudley Por t
Key
Catchment
Tipton Swim 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

---

Tipton Swimming Centre
confirmation of catchment data used
% population 11 - 19
13.53
% population 20 - 59
61.46
% population 60+
25
% population non-white
15.34
% population groups NS-SEC 67
30.51
% population <60 disabled
10.65
% population 60+ disabled
13.11
total residents competing
20467
total residents non-competing
11344
difference
-9123
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 = 0.20
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 = 0.98
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 = 0.44
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 = 0.85
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 = 0.66
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 = 7.63
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 = 32
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 = 1.24
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 = 10.00
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 = 50.67
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 = 39.00
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 = 61
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 = 0.67
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 = 3.68
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 = 25
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 = 5.95
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 = 157
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 = 21.96
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 = 7.89
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 = 209
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 = 2
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 = 28
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 = 1.94
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 = 51
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 = 1.63
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 = 0.31
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 = 26
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 = 87
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 = 5.06
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
10 4.63 291
12 4.28 291
-2
0.35
b.
Ease of booking
13 4.37 262
6 4.52 217
7 -0.15
c.
The activity charge/fee
9 4.67 291
11 4.35 275
-2
0.32
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.34 279
14 4.05 237
0
0.29
Quality of facilities/services
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.45 140
9 4.40 101
3
0.05
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
2 4.90 289
3 4.66 275
-1
0.24
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.84 289
5 4.53 273
-1
0.31
j.
Number of people in the pool
6 4.73 289
7 4.44 288
-1
0.29
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 279
17 2.86 224
-2
1.32
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.68 241
16 3.50 151
1
0.18
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
1 4.90 293
13 4.15 287
-12
0.75
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.87 241
10 4.39 233
-7
0.48
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
8 4.68 298
1 4.75 295
7 -0.07
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.69 299
2 4.70 286
5 -0.01
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
11 4.59 241
4 4.55
82
7
0.04
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
5 4.75 294
8 4.42 288
-3
0.33
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 3.84 240
15 3.65 158
1
0.19
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
4.52 299
* 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
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 279
17 2.86 224
-2
1.32
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
1 4.90 293
13 4.15 287
-12
0.75
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.87 241
10 4.39 233
-7
0.48
a.
Activity available at convenient times
10 4.63 291
12 4.28 291
-2
0.35
r.
Value for money of activities
5 4.75 294
8 4.42 288
-3
0.33
c.
The activity charge/fee
9 4.67 291
11 4.35 275
-2
0.32
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.84 289
5 4.53 273
-1
0.31
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.34 279
14 4.05 237
0
0.29
j.
Number of people in the pool
6 4.73 289
7 4.44 288
-1
0.29
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
2 4.90 289
3 4.66 275
-1
0.24
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 3.84 240
15 3.65 158
1
0.19
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.68 241
16 3.50 151
1
0.18
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.45 140
9 4.40 101
3
0.05
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
11 4.59 241
4 4.55
82
7
0.04
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.69 299
2 4.70 286
5 -0.01
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
8 4.68 298
1 4.75 295
7 -0.07
b.
Ease of booking
13 4.37 262
6 4.52 217
7 -0.15
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
1 4.90 293
13 4.15 287
-12
0.75
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
3 4.87 241
10 4.39 233
-7
0.48
r.
Value for money of activities
5 4.75 294
8 4.42 288
-3
0.33
k.
Quality of car parking on site
15 4.18 279
17 2.86 224
-2
1.32
c.
The activity charge/fee
9 4.67 291
11 4.35 275
-2
0.32
a.
Activity available at convenient times
10 4.63 291
12 4.28 291
-2
0.35
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
2 4.90 289
3 4.66 275
-1
0.24
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4 4.84 289
5 4.53 273
-1
0.31
j.
Number of people in the pool
6 4.73 289
7 4.44 288
-1
0.29
d.
The range of activities available
14 4.34 279
14 4.05 237
0
0.29
s.
Value for money of food/drink
16 3.84 240
15 3.65 158
1
0.19
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 3.68 241
16 3.50 151
1
0.18
g.
Quality of equipment
12 4.45 140
9 4.40 101
3
0.05
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.69 299
2 4.70 286
5 -0.01
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
8 4.68 298
1 4.75 295
7 -0.07
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
11 4.59 241
4 4.55
82
7
0.04
b.
Ease of booking
13 4.37 262
6 4.52 217
7 -0.15
30

---

Centre satisfaction scores compared with industry average scores
centre
centre
industry
industry
score
rank
mean
rank
Activity available at convenient times
4.28
12
4.47
2
Ease of booking
4.52
6
4.32
5
The activity charge/fee
4.35
11
4.18
8
The range of activities available
4.05
14
4.18
8
Quality of equipment
4.40
9
4.11
12
Water quality in the swimming pool
4.66
3
4.22
7
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4.53
5
4.15
10
Number of people in the pool
4.44
7
4.12
11
Quality of car parking on site
2.86
17
3.95
14
Quality of food and drink
3.50
16
3.61
17
Cleanliness of changing areas
4.15
13
3.76
15
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4.39
10
3.97
13
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.75
1
4.39
3
Helpfulness of other staff
4.70
2
4.35
4
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.55
4
4.51
1
Value for money of activities
4.42
8
4.24
6
Value for money of food/drink
3.65
15
3.67
16
Overall satisfaction with visit
4.52
4.30
 
31

---

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 1: 
 
USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS 
32

---

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
0 ( 0.0% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
3 ( 1.0% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
0 ( 0.0% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
0 ( 0.0% )
Gymnastics
0 ( 0.0% )
Basketball or volleyball
0 ( 0.0% )
Other physical activity
0 ( 0.0% )
Swimming or aqua fit
223 ( 74.3% )
A spectator
67 ( 22.3% )
Another type of activity
7 ( 2.3% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
223 ( 99.1% )
Gym/fitness centre
0 ( 0.0% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Smaller hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Another part of the facility
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
75
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
30 ( 13.3% )
As an individual user
196 ( 86.7% )
As a member of a club or team
0 ( 0.0% )
Other
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
74
33

---

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
30 ( 10.0% )
No
270 ( 90.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
182 ( 60.9% )
2
79 ( 26.4% )
3
28 ( 9.4% )
4
5 ( 1.7% )
5
2 ( 0.7% )
6
2 ( 0.7% )
7
1 ( 0.3% )
8 plus
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
192 ( 65.8% )
6 to 10
75 ( 25.7% )
11 to 15
17 ( 5.8% )
16 to 20
7 ( 2.4% )
21 plus
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
34

---

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
152 ( 50.7% )
No
148 ( 49.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
117 ( 78.5% )
Other
32 ( 21.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
151
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
266 ( 88.7% )
Straight from work, school or college
27 ( 9.0% )
Other e.g. from shopping
7 ( 2.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
241 ( 80.3% )
Public transport
7 ( 2.3% )
Walked all the way
50 ( 16.7% )
Other, including cycle
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
35

---

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
94 ( 31.3% )
6-10 minutes
112 ( 37.3% )
11-15 minutes
42 ( 14.0% )
16-20 minutes
29 ( 9.7% )
21-30 minutes
21 ( 7.0% )
31-45 minutes
1 ( 0.3% )
Over 45 minutes
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
141 ( 48.5% )
Fairly satisfied
117 ( 40.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14 ( 4.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
12 ( 4.1% )
Very dissatisfied
7 ( 2.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
138 ( 63.6% )
Fairly satisfied
56 ( 25.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 10.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
83
36

---

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
153 ( 55.6% )
Fairly satisfied
88 ( 32.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 6.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 4.0% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
83 ( 35.0% )
Fairly satisfied
101 ( 42.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
39 ( 16.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
11 ( 4.6% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
63
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
300
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
300
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
56 ( 55.4% )
Fairly satisfied
29 ( 28.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 15.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
199
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
193 ( 70.2% )
Fairly satisfied
74 ( 26.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
38

---

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
169 ( 61.9% )
Fairly satisfied
85 ( 31.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
15 ( 5.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
27
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
179 ( 62.2% )
Fairly satisfied
78 ( 27.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14 ( 4.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
14 ( 4.9% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
28 ( 12.5% )
Fairly satisfied
57 ( 25.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
37 ( 16.5% )
Fairly dissatisfied
60 ( 26.8% )
Very dissatisfied
42 ( 18.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
76
39

---

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
21 ( 13.9% )
Fairly satisfied
60 ( 39.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
50 ( 33.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
14 ( 9.3% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 4.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
149
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
124 ( 43.2% )
Fairly satisfied
114 ( 39.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 8.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
19 ( 6.6% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
123 ( 52.8% )
Fairly satisfied
85 ( 36.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
19 ( 8.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.1% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
67
40

---

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
231 ( 78.3% )
Fairly satisfied
55 ( 18.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
7 ( 2.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.7% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
209 ( 73.1% )
Fairly satisfied
68 ( 23.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
8 ( 2.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
52 ( 63.4% )
Fairly satisfied
25 ( 30.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
3 ( 3.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 2.4% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
218
41

---

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
164 ( 56.9% )
Fairly satisfied
96 ( 33.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 5.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 3.1% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
41 ( 25.9% )
Fairly satisfied
51 ( 32.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
42 ( 26.6% )
Fairly dissatisfied
18 ( 11.4% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 3.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
142
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
175 ( 58.5% )
Fairly satisfied
108 ( 36.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
13 ( 4.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
3 ( 1.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
42

---

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
207 ( 71.1% )
Fairly important
68 ( 23.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 3.4% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.7% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
140 ( 53.4% )
Fairly important
90 ( 34.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
23 ( 8.8% )
Fairly unimportant
8 ( 3.1% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
38
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
218 ( 74.9% )
Fairly important
56 ( 19.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
13 ( 4.5% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
43

---

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
153 ( 54.8% )
Fairly important
87 ( 31.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
24 ( 8.6% )
Fairly unimportant
12 ( 4.3% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
21
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
300
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
300
44

---

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
84 ( 60.0% )
Fairly important
41 ( 29.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 7.9% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 1.4% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 1.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
160
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
262 ( 90.7% )
Fairly important
25 ( 8.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
245 ( 84.8% )
Fairly important
42 ( 14.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
45

---

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
222 ( 76.8% )
Fairly important
59 ( 20.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 1.7% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
130 ( 46.6% )
Fairly important
93 ( 33.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
38 ( 13.6% )
Fairly unimportant
13 ( 4.7% )
Very unimportant
5 ( 1.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
21
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
72 ( 29.9% )
Fairly important
73 ( 30.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
59 ( 24.5% )
Fairly unimportant
22 ( 9.1% )
Very unimportant
15 ( 6.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
59
46

---

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
270 ( 92.2% )
Fairly important
20 ( 6.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
216 ( 89.6% )
Fairly important
22 ( 9.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
59
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
211 ( 70.8% )
Fairly important
80 ( 26.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 1.7% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
47

---

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
217 ( 72.6% )
Fairly important
73 ( 24.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
182 ( 75.5% )
Fairly important
27 ( 11.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
25 ( 10.4% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 2.1% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
59
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
238 ( 81.0% )
Fairly important
44 ( 15.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
8 ( 2.7% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
48

---

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
99 ( 41.3% )
Fairly important
55 ( 22.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
47 ( 19.6% )
Fairly unimportant
27 ( 11.3% )
Very unimportant
12 ( 5.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
60
Q14 Gender.
Male
118 ( 39.3% )
Female
182 ( 60.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
279 ( 93.3% )
Mixed
3 ( 1.0% )
Asian or Asian British
11 ( 3.7% )
Black or Black British
6 ( 2.0% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
49

---

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
47 ( 15.7% )
No
253 ( 84.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
8 ( 2.7% )
20 to 59
227 ( 76.2% )
60 plus
63 ( 21.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
130 ( 43.5% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
52 ( 17.4% )
On government work training programme
0 ( 0.0% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
20 ( 6.7% )
Retired - company / personal pension
26 ( 8.7% )
Retired - state pension only
26 ( 8.7% )
Temporarily unable to work
5 ( 1.7% )
Permanently unable to work
2 ( 0.7% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
6 ( 2.0% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
5 ( 1.7% )
In full-time education (school)
4 ( 1.3% )
Full-time student (college/university)
11 ( 3.7% )
Never worked
10 ( 3.3% )
None of these
2 ( 0.7% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
50

---

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
86 ( 31.9% )
3
48 ( 17.8% )
4
6 ( 2.2% )
5
49 ( 18.1% )
6 & 7
81 ( 30.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
30
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
DY4
149
( 49.7% )
49.7
B69
35
( 11.7% )
61.3
WV14
34
( 11.3% )
72.7
DY3
20
( 6.7% )
79.3
DY1
19
( 6.3% )
85.7
DY2
8
( 2.7% )
88.3
WV5
5
( 1.7% )
90.0
B65
4
( 1.3% )
91.3
WS10
4
( 1.3% )
92.7
B70
3
( 1.0% )
93.7
B43
2
( 0.7% )
94.3
B71
2
( 0.7% )
95.0
WS1O
2
( 0.7% )
95.7
WV4
2
( 0.7% )
96.3
B63
1
( 0.3% )
96.7
B66
1
( 0.3% )
97.0
B68
1
( 0.3% )
97.3
D44
1
( 0.3% )
97.7
DY6
1
( 0.3% )
98.0
DY7
1
( 0.3% )
98.3
E12
1
( 0.3% )
98.7
NV14
1
( 0.3% )
99.0
WS13
1
( 0.3% )
99.3
WS5
1
( 0.3% )
99.7
WY4
1
( 0.3% )
100.0
51

---

Document Outline

• TiptonSwim1109 Report v10
• TiptonSwim1109 bar chart report
• TiptonSwim1109 satisfaction report
• TiptonSwim1109 industry means report
• 3 APPENDIX 1
• TiptonSwim1109 frequencies report

---