WWFC Application Information Hub
Planning application PL/26/07779/FA

6. The claimed benefits of the Performance Hub

Who actually benefits — and how much?

The Performance Hub is the largest and most intensive new element of the proposal.

​

Its primary purpose is clear: it is a professional football training facility for WWFC's First Team and Academy.

That is not the same thing as a public leisure centre.

​

The Applicant's own documents describe the Hub as a “secure training environment rather than a public leisure centre”. Public access to training would not be permitted, access would be controlled, and only certain facilities — such as the indoor pitch, show pitch and 3G pitch — are identified as potentially available for community use at certain times.

That does not mean there is no public benefit.

​

It means the benefit has to be measured carefully.

​

Who are the principal beneficiaries?

The most direct beneficiaries are WWFC itself:

• the First Team;

• the Academy;

• players and staff;

• visiting teams;

• the Club's sporting operation more generally.

• ​

Those are genuine sporting benefits.

​

But they are primarily benefits to a professional football club and its users.

​

The wider public benefit depends on something different: how much of the Hub is actually made available to the community, how often, to whom, and on what terms.

​

How much of the Hub is needed to deliver the public benefit?

The Performance Hub includes a large package of private professional facilities: the Performance Centre, indoor training provision, numerous external pitches, goalkeeper areas, parking, security and associated infrastructure.

​

But only a limited part of that complex is proposed for community use.

​

So the Council should ask:

How much of the total Hub is actually necessary to deliver the public benefits relied upon?

​

If the community benefit principally consists of occasional use of one or two pitches, that does not automatically justify the entire scale of the professional training campus.

​

The public benefit must be assessed in proportion to the part of the development actually needed to provide it.

​

Is there evidence of unmet demand?

The application lists many potentially worthwhile activities:

• junior football;

• women's and girls' football;

• disability football;

• walking football;

• school engagement;

• tournaments;

• community-club hire.

​

Those activities would plainly be positive if delivered.

​

But SPTF has not identified a corresponding Community or Public Use Assessment demonstrating the unmet demand for those facilities.

​

That is notable because Farnham Park already contains multiple football pitches, and the application itself proposes a new dedicated floodlit 3G community pitch there.

​

So before significant weight is attached to community use of the Performance Hub, the Council should know:

• what unmet demand exists beyond the existing and proposed Farnham Park facilities;

• which groups need additional provision;

• how much additional capacity is actually required;

• and how many reliably bookable community hours the Hub would provide.

​

Potential opportunity is not the same as demonstrated need.

​

Could the public benefits be delivered somewhere else?

Another question follows naturally.

​

If the community benefit consists mainly of access to football pitches, coaching, school programmes or club hire, is the full Performance Hub the only way of providing those benefits?

​

Could some or all of them be delivered:

• at Farnham Park Playing Fields;

• through additional community facilities elsewhere;

• through existing football grounds or schools;

• or through a materially smaller or differently configured Hub?

​

The application does not demonstrate that the whole of the proposed Performance Hub is necessary in order to provide the claimed community benefits.

​

This matters because the Hub's professional requirements and the public benefits are not the same thing.

​

Community use comes second

The application itself makes clear that community use would occur around WWFC's primary sporting requirements.

​

The proposed Community Use Framework refers to opportunities during school holidays, international breaks and selected weekends, while detailed charging and access arrangements are still to be developed.

​

That is a very different form of provision from a dedicated community facility with regular guaranteed availability.

​

For a local club, school, youth team or disability group, predictability matters.

​

A team that needs a pitch every Wednesday evening cannot build a season around occasional availability when the professional club happens not to need the facility.

​

On what terms?

The practical value of community use depends on conditions that have not yet been clearly defined.

​

SPTF has not identified firm information establishing:

• guaranteed weekly or annual hours;

• priority between WWFC and community users;

• whether bookings can be displaced;

• pricing;

• concessionary rates;

• eligibility;

• opening times;

• continuity over the football season;

• long-term maintenance obligations;

• or what happens if community provision is reduced later.

​

The Statement of Community Involvement itself says that detailed community-use and charging arrangements will be developed as the operational model progresses.

​

That makes the present benefit difficult to quantify.

​

Will the benefit last as long as the Hub?

The physical development could remain for many decades.

​

The community benefit should therefore be tested over a similar horizon.

​

A pitch that is theoretically available to the public at opening may carry much less weight if availability, pricing or programming can later be reduced.

​

So the relevant question is not merely: Can the community use part of the Hub?

It is: What minimum public use is legally secured, at affordable cost, for the lifetime of the development?

​

A permanent professional training campus should not be justified by temporary, discretionary or poorly defined community access.

​

Net benefit, not gross activity

The wider site is already heavily used for recreation.

So future attendance figures should not automatically be treated as wholly new participation.

The Council should distinguish between:

• people newly becoming active;

• existing participants using better facilities;

• programmes transferred from elsewhere;

• repeat visits by the same users;

• and participation lost through the reduction of existing recreational uses.

• ​

The relevant measure is net additional public benefit, not simply the number of future visits or activities listed in promotional material.

​

A public facility — or a visitor inside a private training complex?

There is also a qualitative difference between using a facility designed for public access and being admitted as an authorised visitor to a secure professional training campus.

​

Community users of the Performance Hub would first pass through controlled access and enter a site whose primary purpose is professional football training. The Applicant itself describes the Hub as a secure training environment rather than a public leisure centre.

​

That does not prevent community use. But it may affect how welcoming, convenient and inclusive that use feels in practice.

​

A local team booking a municipal sports centre enters a place designed around public use. At the Performance Hub, community users would enter a high-security facility designed primarily around the needs, privacy and safeguarding requirements of professional players and Academy operations.

​

That distinction becomes particularly important if community access is intermittent, secondary to WWFC's needs, or limited to selected pitches while associated facilities such as changing rooms, toilets, reception or social areas are not clearly included.

​

Controlled access means controlled use

Community users would not be entering an ordinary public sports centre. They would be entering a secure professional training complex in which only selected facilities are intended for community use.

​

That is likely to require controlled movement within the site, and possibly supervision or escort arrangements, so that public users remain within the areas made available to them.

​

SPTF has not identified detailed information explaining how this would work in practice.

​

That matters because the practical attractiveness of the community offer depends not only on whether access is theoretically permitted, but on how easy, welcoming and independent that use would actually feel.

​

​

Our conclusion

The Performance Hub undoubtedly provides substantial benefits to WWFC's professional football operation.

The public benefit is much less certain.

​

It depends on:

• how much of the Hub is genuinely available to the public;

• whether that provision meets evidenced unmet demand;

• whether the same benefit could be delivered elsewhere or through a smaller scheme;

• whether access is regular and predictable;

• whether it is affordable;

• and whether it is secured for the lifetime of the development.

• ​

Until those questions are answered, the existence of a large professional training complex should not itself be treated as equivalent to a substantial public benefit.

​

The scale of the Hub and the scale of the public benefit are not the same thing.