Committee Report Checklist 

 

Please submit the completed checklists with your report. If final draft report does not include all the information/sign offs required, your item will be delayed until the next meeting cycle. 

 

Stage 1

Report checklist – responsibility of report owner. 

ITEM	Yes / No	Date
Councillor engagement / input from Chair prior to briefing	YES	02.02.26 06.03.26
Commissioner engagement (if report focused on issues of concern to Commissioners such as Finance, Assets etc)	YES	05.03.26
Relevant Group Head review	LH AB DA SM KS CH	06.02.26
MAT+ review (to have been circulated at least 5 working days before Stage 2)	YES	06.02.26
This item is on the Forward Plan for the relevant committee	YES	02.02.26
	Reviewed by
Finance comments (circulate to Finance)	A. Bozhani	02.02.26
Risk comments (circulate to Lee O’Neil)	L. O’Neil	04.03.26
Legal comments (circulate to Legal team)	LH	17.02.26
HR comments (if applicable)		n/a

 

For reports with material financial or legal implications the author should engage with the respective teams at the outset and receive input to their reports prior to asking for MO or s151 comments.

Stage 2

Report checklist – responsibility of report owner. 

ITEM	Completed by	Date
Monitoring Officer commentary – at least 5 working days before MAT	L. Heron	06.03.26
S151 Officer commentary – at least 5 working days before MAT	T. Collier	06.03.26
Confirm final report cleared by MAT	MAT	10.03.2026

 

 

 

Environment and Sustainability Committee          

Thursday 19 March 2026

Title	Public Consultation for Proposed Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) at Memorial Gardens, Staines upon Thames
Purpose of the report	To make a decision
Report Author	Jackie Taylor Group Head Neighbourhood Services
Ward(s) Affected	All Wards
Exempt	No
Exemption Reason	Not applicable
Corporate Priority	Community  Environment Services
Recommendations	Committee is asked to: 1.            Authorise the Group Head Neighbourhood Services (GHNS) to commence a public consultation exercise for the proposed new Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to be built in Memorial Gardens, Staines-upon-Thames; 2.            Subject to the Group Head Neighbourhood Services (GHNS) and the Group Head Corporate Governance (GHCG), in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of this Committee, reviewing the consultation responses and being satisfied that, on balance, the feedback indicates overall support for the proposal and that any issues raised can be appropriately addressed, authorise GHNS to: a.            Appoint appropriately qualified ecological specialists to undertake the necessary ecological appraisals and surveys required to support the planning application for the proposed installation of a new MUGA; b.            Undertake a procurement exercise to establish availability of resource and the indicative cost of the works; and c.             Submit a planning application for the construction and installation of a new recreation facility, including associated fencing, safety surfacing, and site preparation works at Memorial Gardens, Staines-upon-Thames. 3.            GHNS to report back to the E&S Committee with feedback from the consultation, procurement exercise, and planning meeting.
Reason for Recommendation	Installing a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) within the park has the potential to reduce anti-social behaviour by providing a positive, structured environment for sport and recreation. The facility has the potential to bring diverse groups together and offer constructive opportunities for young people through supervised and informal activity. As this would be a new facility, the project is subject to several preliminary requirements. These include undertaking a public consultation, securing committee approval, and obtaining the necessary planning permission before any procurement or installation works can commence.

 

1.         Executive summary of the report

What is the situation	Why we want to do something
•      The garden is a well-used public space but currently has limited facilities aimed at older children and young people. This has contributed to concerns regarding a lack of structured recreational opportunities and the associated potential for anti-social behaviour within and around the park. Members have identified a need to improve provision for informal sport and physical activity to better meet community needs and promote positive use of the space. •      Several large new developments have taken place in Staines-upon-Thames (SUT), and this proposed outdoor facility will provide additional outdoor space for the residents of these new properties.	•      The proposal to install a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) has been put forward by members as a potential solution to address recreational provision gap. This report seeks the committee’s approval to develop the proposal further in line with the recommendations.
This is what we want to do about it	These are the next steps
•      It is proposed to develop a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to enhance recreational provision and support positive use of the garden.	•      Public consultation will be carried out. •      Subject to the results of the public consultation ecology, planning and procurement aspects will be progressed.

 

2.         Key issues

2.1       Located in Staines-upon-Thames, Memorial Gardens is a riverside green space and a key component of the Staines Conservation Area. Established in 1897, the gardens occupy a prominent position. Historically, the site served as the original home of the Staines War Memorial before its relocation to Market Square in 2002.

2.2       The gardens are undergoing a transition, and a different project is currently underway to install a new children's play facility on the site to enhance the area's family friendly utility. The Gardens remain a popular destination for leisure, offering river mooring, trees, flowerbeds, and a central location for local events and quiet reflection along the River Thames.

2.3       Memorial Gardens serves as a vital cornerstone for community health and wellbeing in Staines, functioning as a "blue green" therapeutic space that integrates physical activity with mental restoration, aligned with the current Spelthorne Health and Wellbeing Strategy. The Gardens help to provide a high-quality environment for "green prescribing," where the riverside setting helps reduce stress and combat social isolation.

2.4       The introduction of a new active play area facility on the former five swimmers sculpture site, which is a different project, further promotes health equity by providing free, accessible exercise opportunities for families. By linking the Thames Path to local residential hubs, the Gardens encourage active travel and daily movement, significantly contributing to the borough’s long-term goals of preventing chronic illness and enhancing the overall quality of life for residents.

2.5       This report seeks Members’ approval to commence a public consultation exercise for the proposed new Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) to be built in Memorial Gardens SUT. Subject to favourable outcomes from the consultation and in the event the responses do not identify a substantial detrimental impact on local amenity, authorise this project to progress further as detailed in the recommendations.

2.6       The proposed MUGA would complement the new play area for younger children planned for the park, providing recreational opportunities for residents and visitors of all ages. The facility would support and promote the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Strategy while ensuring a balanced range of play and activity provision within the park.

2.7       The proposal would be for the MUGA to be managed on a semi-informal basis, with access gates opened and closed in line with the borough’s park gates. During opening hours, the facility would be available for open community use, supporting accessibility and remaining consistent with the wider garden management arrangements.

2.8       A multi-use games area, otherwise known as a MUGA, is a multipurpose facility designed to incorporate sports such as tennis, netball, basketball, football, and many other sports all into one area. It enables people of all ages to play all those sports at contrasting times, or at the same time on one facility.

2.9       The benefit of MUGA is that it is available in various surface types and therefore useable all year round without the need for natural grass surface damage and subsequently frequent repairs.

2.10     The proposed MUGA is intended to provide a positive and structured recreational facility that may help divert young people away from anti-social behaviour and encourage more constructive use of the garden. The parks team manage eight existing MUGAs around Spelthorne and it is considered that due to the age group of those using these facilities damage to the structure and features of the facility would be minimal. This is evident from the management of existing MUGAs in the borough.

2.11     Location within the garden:
Careful consideration will be given to the siting of the proposed MUGA to balance accessibility, ecology, safeguarding, noise levels, and the possible impact on nearby residents and other park users.

2.12     Community Consultation:
A public consultation will be undertaken to gather feedback from residents, park users, local schools, and other stakeholders, including the Staines Business Improvement District and the organisers of the annual Staines-upon-Thames Day, which has been hosted in the Gardens for the past decade.

Relevant stakeholders and statutory consultees, such as Ward Members, the Environment Agency (where relevant), and the Emergency Services will be invited to provide views where appropriate.

The consultation will provide information on the proposed Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA), including its potential location, design, and operating arrangements, and will seek feedback to help inform the development of the proposal. The consultation process will ensure that feedback received can inform both the design of the proposal and the planning process, with the results used to support any planning application.

2.13     Planning and Regulatory Requirements:
The installation of a new MUGA will require planning permission, along with compliance with relevant environmental, accessibility, and safeguarding standards. Further detail is provided within this report (point 12 Other Considerations).

2.14     Financial Implications and Funding:
It is intended that capital costs for installation of the facility would be met by way of an application that has been submitted to the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Board. The deadline for applications to Local CIL is 31 March 2026. Applications will then be presented to the decision-making group for consideration, with outcomes published in July of the same year.

Ongoing maintenance, and safety checks will be undertaken by the parks team without additional costs as the facility would be incorporated into the work of the existing Playground Inspection Officer.

2.15     Management and Maintenance:
It is proposed that the facility would operate primarily on a semi-informal, open-access basis, with day-to-day use managed by users rather than through a formal programme of organised activities or events. It is intended to have a formal process of unlocking and locking the access gates into the area. This security measure will be incorporated into the current parks and open spaces daily locking and unlocking timetables. It should be noted that the intention is to install low level fencing around the MUGA, potentially this means that users may wish to gain access to the area by climbing over the low-level fencing outside of its intended hours of opening.

Responsibility for inspections and maintenance will be incorporated into the existing duties of the Playground Inspection Officer within the Parks Team. This will ensure the facility is subject to routine safety inspections, defect reporting, and appropriate maintenance in line with current operational standards. There is no intention to install CCTV specifically for this MUGA.

2.16     Ecology and Biodiversity

Consideration will need to be given to the presence of protected species, existing habitats, mature trees, and green infrastructure within the park. An initial ecological appraisal will be required to identify any constraints, along with any necessary mitigation measures to minimise habitat loss, disturbance, and light or noise impacts as the proposed installation of this MUGA has the potential to impact local ecology and biodiversity.

The project will seek to avoid ecologically sensitive areas where possible and incorporate biodiversity enhancements into the design, such as sustainable drainage solutions, retention of existing vegetation, and opportunities for habitat creation or improvement, in line with relevant planning policy and biodiversity duty.

3.         Options appraisal and proposal

Option 1 – Progress Development of a Semi-Informal MUGA (Preferred)

Approve the recommendations as set out in this report.  This will enable the initial phase of the project to be progressed with a view to ultimately securing the following:

 

·            The installation of a MUGA on a suitable area within the Gardens.

·            The facility would have restricted access during the existing park gates opening and closing times. During opening hours (Summer 07:30 to 20:30 and Winter 07:30 to 18:00) the MUGA would be managed informally by users with no charges or booking required. Routine inspections and maintenance will be incorporated into the Parks Team’s existing responsibilities.

·            The facility would provide recreational opportunities, encourage positive use, and help limit anti-social behaviour.

·            In recognition of the Gardens’ use for the annual Staines upon Thames Day, consideration will be given, when preparing the specification, to the possible provision of removable fencing on one side of the MUGA.

·            This project is subject to Committee approval, public consultation, ecology surveys, planning permission, and funding in addition to the statements and assessments detailed in point 5.1.

Option 2 – Do Nothing

·            The park remains unchanged, with no additional recreational provision for older children and young people.

·            Anti-social behaviour and limited engagement opportunities that may already exist would continue.

·            No financial or operational implications arise from this do-nothing option.

Option 3 – Develop Managed/Organised MUGA

·         Install a MUGA with formal management, bookings, or organised events.

·         Greater control over use but increased operational and staffing costs.

·         This would create a higher administrative burden and need for ongoing supervision and programmed sessions.

Proposal Option 1 – Semi-Informal MUGA is recommended as it offers a strong balance between community benefit, cost-effectiveness, and ease of management, while meeting the need for accessible, structured recreational space. Consultation, ecological survey results and planning processes will inform the final location and design, and funding will be confirmed prior to the procurement of equipment, followed by installation.

4.            Risk implications

4.1       The proposed installation of a MUGA carries a range of potential risks that            must be managed:

Potential Risk	Mitigation
Health and Safety, risk of injury during use.	This is no different to the situation with all recreation activities in the Borough and will be mitigated in the same way through design standards, signage, and routine inspections by the Playground Inspection Officer.
Proximity of MUGA to the River Thames may increase the risk of balls entering the river and children attempting to retrieve them	Design mitigation measures, such as increased fence height and full enclosure of the MUGA; ensure consultation highlights safety considerations; incorporate river proximity into planning and design approvals.
While the facility aims to reduce ASB, there is a risk of damage or misuse.	The introduction of structured opening and closing times, alongside regular inspections and ongoing community engagement, will support management of this risk. CCTV monitoring is not included in this proposal, and there is no intention to install lighting, which should naturally encourage appropriate daytime use and help to manage activity levels within the site.
Planning permission may be delayed or refused.	Early engagement with planning officers and adherence to policy and environmental standards will help to reduce this risk
Due to the project’s complexity, an external provider will prepare the planning application and all supporting documents to ensure a balanced submission.	Early engagement with stakeholders and Planning department will help to mitigate these complexities.
Impact on habitats, protected species, or trees.	A tree survey has already been undertaken which does not identify any risks to trees within the proposed installation area, in addition to this ecological appraisals and design measures will minimise potential disruption.
CIL application.	The project depends on CIL funding. If this is not approved, no further exploratory works can proceed until a further report has been considered by committee.
Abortive costs, cost over runs, ongoing maintenance liabilities, or insufficient funding.	All initial costs will be carefully managed and kept to a minimum to limit exposure to abortive costs; accurate cost estimates, and contingency planning before procurement will help to avoid overspend on the CIL budget allocation (subject to the award being made).
Misuse of the facility.	Monitoring and reporting by officers, users, community engagement, and management arrangements will assist with mitigating any potential misuse.
Reputational risk.	Consultation with stakeholders and residents helps mitigate reputational risk by demonstrating transparency, showing the Council is listening, and identifying potential concerns early. It improves the quality and credibility of proposals, reduces the likelihood of public opposition or negative media coverage, and provides clear evidence that decisions have been made responsibly and with community input.

4.2       Risks will be managed through, consultation outcomes, routine inspections           and adherence to council policies, with further reports to Committee if                 additional mitigation or resources are required.

5.         Financial implications

5.1       As the site lies within a Conservation Area and an Area of High Archaeological Potential, the Council will be required to appoint a consultant to prepare both a Heritage Statement and an Archaeological Assessment, together with a flooding consultant to prepare a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), as part of the planning approval process. It is anticipated that the costs associated with preparing these statements and assessments, and submitting a planning application, which requires an architect’s design would be in the region of £27,000–£30,000.

5.2       The capital cost of installing a MUGA would depend on the final design, site preparation requirements, and any associated landscaping or ecological mitigation, and undertaking the procurement process. Funding for the project would need to be confirmed by the CIL task group before procurement and installation can proceed.

5.3       It is estimated that the project from start to finish is estimated to cost in the region of £500k which includes a contingency of £75k which may not be required and will then remain in the general CIL fund. In readiness, a CIL application of £500k has been submitted by Neighbourhood Services for consideration by the CIL Board, if the CIL board approve the funding the announcement would be in July of the same year.  This application can be withdrawn at any time.  

5.4       Ongoing revenue implications are expected to be limited, as the facility would operate semi- informally and managed primarily by users. Routine inspections and maintenance will be incorporated into the existing responsibilities of the Playground Inspection Officer within the Parks Team, with minimal additional staffing costs anticipated.

5.5       It is anticipated that the ongoing revenue implications would not create additional budgetary pressure, as these activities will be incorporated into existing workloads. The additional works required to manage and maintain the facility include:

·         Emptying one additional litter bin daily

·         Daily removal of additional litter in and around the area

·         Daily unlocking and locking of the MUGA

·         Monthly scheduled maintenance inspections and general maintenance

Task	frequency	time	Daily cost
Litter bin	daily	365 x 0.15 minutes	£2.73 x 365 days
Litter pick	daily	365 x 0.15 minutes	£2.73 x 365 days
Unlocking Visual inspection	daily	365 x 0.30 minutes	£5.46 x 365 days
Locking	daily		£7.00 x 365 days
Monthly inspection	monthly	12 x 0.30 minutes	£10.77 x 12 days per year
Costs per year			£6,670

As the MUGA will be constructed to a robust standard, repair costs associated with other borough MUGAs have historically been minimal. These costs primarily relate to the occasional replacement of basketball nets and/or removal of graffiti. While the surface may degrade over time due to levels of use, resurfacing is not expected to be required for at least five years.

Potential vandalism costs cannot be quantified, as this remains an unknown factor; however, vandalism has not been a significant issue at other borough MUGAs to date.

5.6       Potential financial risks include cost overruns, unforeseen site preparation requirements, or increased maintenance needs. These will be mitigated through accurate cost estimation, contingency planning, and monitoring of the facility once operational.

Item	Estimated Cost / Impact	Comments / Mitigation
Capital Cost of MUGA Installation	To be determined (dependent on design, size, and site preparation)	Costs confirmed through procurement; include contingency for site works.
Planning and Consultation	Due to the project’s complexity, an external provider will prepare the planning application and all supporting documents to ensure a balanced submission.	Early engagement with stakeholders and planning department will help to mitigate these complexities.
Routine Inspections and Maintenance	Absorbed within existing Parks Team duties.	Inspections undertaken by Playground Inspection Officer; minimal additional cost.
Operational and Staffing Costs	None anticipated initially.	Semi-Informal, open-access facility, locking and unlocking of the facility incorporated into the park’s existing security schedules.
Contingency and Risk Mitigation	Recommended 10–15% of capital costs.	This covers unforeseen site preparation, surveys, planning applications and other associated or unforeseen costs and is included within the £500k CIL bid.
Revenue and Income	Funding for this entire project is expected to be met by a CIL application. MUGAs are built to the highest standards for durability, minimizing damage and resisting vandalism, to reduce any ongoing maintenance costs.	Facility is free for public use.

 

6.         Legal comments

6.1       Advice and assistance from the Legal Team should be obtained in the review       of the legal title to the proposed new site to ascertain all and any covenants or restrictions to which the land might be subject.

6.2       All contracts relating to the proposed works must comply with the Council’s           Contract Standing Orders.

6.3       Legal Team will assist in the preparation and negotiation of contracts and              other necessary documentation relating to this project.

6.4      In accordance with the Terms of Reference in part 3 section (b) of the                     Constitution, parks, open spaces, allotments and playgrounds are within the         area of responsibility for the Environment and Sustainability Committee.

7.         Corporate implications

7.1       S151 Officer comments.

The S151 Officer confirms that all financial implications have been taken into account and provision for £500k has been built into the approved Capital Programme for 2026/2027 on the assumption that the funding is coming from CIL.

The ongoing revenue costs can be met from existing budgets, MUGA equipment and surfacing typically lasts between 8 and 20+ years before needing to be replaced or resurfaced, heavily depending on the material, usage levels, and maintenance.

8.         Monitoring Officer comments

8.1       The Monitoring Officer confirms that the relevant legal implications have been taken into account.

9.         Procurement comments

9.1       In accordance with the Council’s Contract Standing Orders the Procurement Team must assist with this project and all appointments must be in accordance with the relevant legislation and regulations.

10.       Equality and Diversity

10.1     The proposed MUGA would be designed to be accessible and inclusive for all members of the community, in line with the Council’s equality duties. Considerations will include:

·         Accessibility: The facility would comply with relevant standards to ensure access for people with physical disabilities, including level surfacing, ramps, and inclusive equipment where appropriate.

·         Age Inclusivity: The MUGA would cater primarily to older children and younger people, but its design will allow use by a broad range of age groups.

·         Gender and Cultural Inclusivity: The open-access nature of the facility encourages use by all genders and cultural groups, promoting diversity and social cohesion.

·         Community Engagement: Public consultation will seek the views of all groups to ensure the facility meets community needs.

The design, siting, and management arrangements would take equality considerations into account, and any adjustments required to address identified barriers will be incorporated before installation.

11.       Sustainability/Climate Change Implications

11.1     The installation of a MUGA presents opportunities to incorporate sustainable design and climate-conscious practices. Key considerations include:

·         Materials and Construction: Wherever possible, materials with low environmental impact, durability, and recyclability would be used to reduce the carbon footprint of the facility.

·         Energy Use: The proposed MUGA will operate without powered equipment, minimising ongoing energy consumption. It is not proposed to install any lighting in this facility.

·         Surface Water Management: Sustainable drainage solutions (SuDS) would be considered to manage surface water runoff and reduce flood risk.

·         Biodiversity: Design and siting would aim to protect existing habitats and may include enhancements such as tree planting or green buffers, supporting local wildlife.

·         Longevity and Maintenance: The use of durable materials and routine maintenance would extend the life of the facility, reducing resource use and the need for frequent replacement.

11.2     Overall, the project aims to balance recreational provision with environmental responsibility, in line with the council’s climate change and sustainability commitments.

12.       Other considerations

12.1     Memorial Gardens sits within the Staines Conservation Area which is legally protected for its historic and architectural significance, with specific management rules to preserve views, open spaces, buildings, and the riverfront.

12.2     The Conservation Area Status would be considered at every stage of the project. Building of this MUGA within the garden would need to evidence:

·         Protected views of the Thames and Market Square

·         Preserve the open, landscaped character.

·         Avoid damage to trees or historic features.

·         Use appropriate materials.

12.3     The planning application will need to evidence that the MUGA preserves or enhances the Conservation Area, in line with Sections 69 and 72 of the 1990 Act and local policy EN6.

12.4     Sections 69 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 mandate the designation and preservation of conservation areas, while local policy EN6 requires development to preserve or enhance the character of these areas. Section 69 compels councils to identify special areas, and Section 72 requires that special attention be paid to preserving or enhancing their character/appearance in planning decisions.

12.5     Preliminary Stakeholder Discussions

Preliminary discussions have taken place with Surrey Fire and Rescue and Surrey Police, both of whom have provided helpful early feedback regarding the proposed new play area within Memorial Gardens. The new play area is intended to replace the ‘five swimmers’ that have been relocated to a new housing development in SUT, and the Committee has already approved that project to progress. Based on these initial conversations, it is anticipated that both partners would welcome the opportunity to be consulted further should a proposal to construct a MUGA within the same park be developed.

Preliminary discussions have also taken place with the Staines-upon-Thames Business Improvement District (BID), who have confirmed their support for the proposed MUGA in Memorial Gardens.

 

12.6     Arboriculture Impact Assessment Summary

            An Arboriculture Impact Assessment has been conducted for the proposed installation area (see Appendix 1 for proposed site location), with the key positive findings as follows:

·            All existing mature trees can be retained, and no tree works are required.

·            There will be no encroachment into the Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of any protected trees because of the proposed development of the MUGA.

·            Two individual trees and two groups of trees require protection of their RPAs during construction.

·            Construction processes are highly unlikely to negatively affect the health of retained trees, provided all recommendations in the report are adhered to.

·            The method statement focuses on measures to protect trees throughout construction.

12.7     Environment Agency

Installing a MUGA on green belt land next to a river involves several complex environmental and planning considerations. The Environment Agency (EA) and local planning authorities will need to consider the potential impact on flood risk, ecology, and landscape. A detailed list of potential issues that might be raised and would then need to be addressed as part of the planning approval stage is listed at Appendix 4.

12.8     Anti-Social Behaviour matters to be addressed.

When considering the installation of a MUGA in a riverside garden, it is important to carefully plan for potential anti-social behaviour (ASB) risks and associated considerations. Thoughtful design and management can help address matters such as noise and disturbance, vandalism and graffiti, litter and environmental impact, user conflicts, unsupervised gatherings, water safety, and perceptions of safety, with the aim of ensuring that the space is welcoming and well-used for its intended purpose.

13.       Timetable for implementation

Subject to Committee approval in March 2026, consultation with partners and public stakeholders will be undertaken. This will be followed by the finalisation of the design and the submission of a planning application. Subject to the absence of unforeseen factors or delays at any stage of the process, it is anticipated that contractors will be appointed in January, with construction and delivery scheduled for completion by the end of March 2027.

Stage	Description	Committee	Indicative Timescale
Committee Approval	Approval to proceed	E&S	19 March 2026
Stakeholder Consultation	Consultation with partner stakeholders March-June Wider Public consultation May-June		March – June 2026
Consultation and Stakeholder Response Review	Review and consideration of consultation responses		June-July 2026
Procurement exercise	Undertake procurement exercise to establish costs		August 2026
Design, Development and Planning	Design, development and submission of planning application (subject to consultation feedback)		July-October 2026
Planning Committee	Consideration of planning application and documents	Planning	November 2026
Report	GHNS to report outcome of consultation, procurement exercise and planning to E&S committee	E&S	Jan 2027

 

14.       Contact

Jackie Taylor Group Head Neighbourhood Services 01784 446418

 

Background papers: There are none.

Appendices:

Appendix 1 Proposed site plan and images of Memorial Gardens SUT

Appendix 2 Visual of the proposed area of the MUGA in Memorial Gardens SUT.

Appendix 3 Map of Staines Conservation Area and Dedicated Bridleway within Memorial Gardens SUT

Appendix 4 Flood risk issues to be addressed and EA flood risk map.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 1

Proposed site location for the MUGA in Memorial Gardens SUT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 2

Illustrative visual of the proposed area of the MUGA in Memorial Gardens SUT.

Size of the MUGA is subject to the final design, images and sizes are for illustrative purposes only

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix 3

Map of Staines Conservation Area and Dedicated Bridleway within Memorial Gardens

 

Map of Staines Conservation Area

 

 

 

Dedicated bridleway

 

 

Appendix 4

Flood risk issues to be addressed and EA flood risk map.

 

Flood Risk EA checklist.

 

1. Flood Risk and Drainage

✅ Flood Risk Assessment (FRA): Required if in Zone 2/3 or >1 ha. Should cover:

Likely flood depths and velocities

Surface water runoff

Impact on downstream flooding

✅ Surface Water Management:

Use permeable surfaces if possible (e.g., permeable tarmac, porous artificial turf).

Install SUDS (swales, retention ponds, filter drains).

Ensure runoff does not go directly into the river.

2. Ecological and Biodiversity Protection

✅ Ecological Survey: Identify protected species (otters, water voles, bats, birds).

✅ Habitat Mitigation:

Maintain riparian buffer zone (ideally 8–10 m from river edge).

Avoid disturbing natural vegetation.

Plant native species to compensate for habitat loss.

✅ Timing of Works: Avoid breeding seasons for wildlife (spring–summer for birds, mammals).

3. Green Belt Compliance

✅ Justify MUGA as Appropriate Use:

Must be community or school-linked recreation.

Avoid permanent large structures (high fencing, floodlights) unless essential.

✅ Minimize Visual Impact:

Use low fencing, natural colours, no tall floodlights if possible.

4. Pollution Prevention

✅ Runoff Management: Capture or filter rainwater to prevent debris or chemicals reaching river.

✅ Material Choice: Avoid rubber crumb or hazardous chemicals that can leach into soil/water.

✅ Waste Management Plan: Ensure litter and sports waste don’t enter river.

5. Permits and Approvals

✅ Planning Permission: Needed for green belt land; may need design/landscape statements.

✅ Flood Risk Activity Permit: Required if works are in or near the river channel.

✅ Environmental Permit: Required if there’s risk to water quality or habitats.

6. Noise

✅ Noise Assessment: Especially for schools or community facilities near residential areas.