Tennis centres
This publication is intended for Valuation Officers. It may contain links to internal resources that are not available through this version.
This is a dwindling class of property. These may best be described as “true” tennis centres to distinguish them from private health and fitness clubs with a racquets facility (eg David Lloyds). They were first developed in earnest following the setting up of the Indoor Tennis Initiative (ITI) in 1988 - the objective was to facilitate the nurturing of British tennis players of international standing through the provision of indoor playing facilities which would enable players to continue playing during the winter months.
The ITI was a Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) scheme targeted at local authorities with the aim of increasing the number of ‘pay and play’ indoor tennis centres in Britain. Briefly the scheme provided local authorities up to 30% of the capital cost of an indoor tennis centre comprising at least 4 indoor and outdoor courts, or 50% of the cost of covering existing courts. Additionally assistance was provided towards staff costs and seeking sponsorship deals and the provision of operational and marketing advice. The scheme was initially set up with the objective of providing 50 ITI centres during a period of 5 years but changes in the financial climate meant that the target could not be achieved.
Over time the style of operation has changed in response to shifting attitudes to the game and greater involvement of the private sector. The LTA no longer provides support in this form, preferring to direct grants and sponsorship to an individual club level.
This section only applies to standalone tennis centres and does not apply to local authority facilities within a local authority complex. These are dealt with in the Rating Manual: Section 6 - Part 3 - Section 960.
Primary Description Code: LS7
List Description: Tennis Centre and Premises
Scat Code: 277 Suffix S
This is a specialist class of property, to be valued by Valuers in each Business Unit.
The Class Co-Ordination Team has overall responsibility for the co-ordination of this class. Contact details are in VP and CCT Members. The team is responsible for approach, accuracy and consistency of valuations. The team will deliver Practice Notes describing the valuation basis for revaluation and provide advice as necessary during the life of the rating lists. Caseworkers and referencers have a responsibility to:
-
follow the advice given at all times
-
not depart from the guidance given on appeals or maintenance work without approval from the co-ordination team
-
seek advice from the co-ordination team before starting any new work
There are no specific legal issues associated with this class of property.
As the contractor’s basis of valuation will be used as the primary method of valuation for the majority of cases the standard of survey should be such as to enable a valuation on this basis to be carried out.
Measurement will be on the basis of GIA.
It will be important to measure any tennis halls, domes, ancillary accommodation (changing, bars and restaurants, viewing galleries, grandstands, function rooms etc) and outside courts (grass and hard surface). It will also be necessary to determine the nature of the hard surface - tarmac, clay, all-weather etc. The number of courts is also required (single and double). It will also be necessary to gain full details of any lighting/floodlighting to include the number of lighting poles, their height and construction, the number of lamps on each pole and level of illumination afforded (in lux). The lighting should be recorded as plant and machinery.
In all cases plans and surveys should be stored in the property folder of the Electronic Document Records Management (EDRM) system.
In the majority of cases in the absence of reliable rental evidence the basis of valuation will be the contractor’s basis. The general principles are outlined in RM section 6 part 5. Cost of construction is given in the Cost Guide S6:270.
For local authority and private members clubs a profits based valuation is considered to be unsuitable. In many instances, and particularly in the case of local authority occupations, profit may not be the prime motive for occupation. Moreover accounts information may often not relate solely to the particular hereditament under consideration, and indeed rarely will be made fully available.
There may be an argument for a profits based valuation where the club is privately operated but it is suggested these circumstances will be extremely rare.
Analysis - to facilitate comparison, valuations should be expressed in terms of a price per court inclusive of a basic viewing gallery but otherwise exclusive of ancillaries. Ancillaries, which may vary in type and quality considerably should be expressed separately.
Converted Buildings - It is considered that courts constructed within existing buildings should be valued with regard to any rental evidence that may exist with consideration to tenant’s improvements. It is important to remember however that should rental evidence be imported from other modes and category of use, the valuer will need to be able to demonstrate with evidence that a tennis club would be prepared to pay that level of rent. It is also suggested that it would be useful to cross check any valuations with a direct comparison with other courts that have been valued on a contractor’s basis.
All valuations should be entered either on RSA if a rental approach is applicable or the NBS in the event of a contractor’s basis under Sports and Leisure Centres.
Additional support is available through:
-
Survaid
-
Class Co-ordination Team
1. Market Appraisal
Community indoor tennis centres have seen limited new development, with emphasis on improvements to all-year playing facilities such as indoor courts and floodlighting. National grants have not generally been available, although loans and local grants have allowed improvements.
Participation has seen a further decline. National bodies are seeking to improve participation with a refreshed training and development structure to improve progression to national and professional levels, and also with a programme of new centres for grassroots players, targeting underserved areas. This initiative may see a large number of new indoor tennis venues built during the 2020s.
2. Changes from the last Practice Note
No changes, other than updated costs.
3. Ratepayers Discussions
No discussions have taken place.
4. Valuation Scheme
In the majority of cases in the absence of reliable rental evidence the basis of valuation will be the contractor’s basis.
4.1 - Main Structures
| Tennis Halls (Medium Quality, 4 court facility) | CG Ref STN020 | £853 per sq m |
| Tennis Courts (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30A | £47,463 to £69,817 for 1 Court |
| Tennis Courts (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30F | £78,051 to £120,540 for 2 Courts |
| Tennis Courts (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30K | £108,705 to £171,336 for 3 Courts |
| Tennis Courts (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30P | £139,357 to £222,142 for 4 Courts |
| Tennis Court Covers/Bubbles | ||
| Single skin including foundation | CG Ref 53U15F | £95,126 |
| Double skin including foundation | CG Ref 53U16A | £142,573 |
Lighting columns and lamps should be individually cost by reference to the cost guide.
Contract Size Adjustment - to be applied in accordance with the Cost Guide
Location Factors - to be applied in accordance with the Cost Guide (or RM Vol 4 Section 7)
Stage 2 - Age and Obsolescence - Monsanto allowances to be applied.
4.2 External Works
| Description | Adopted % |
|---|---|
| Town centre or island site typically with 90% or greater building ratio, no more than a small yard or garden area, and either no car parking, or a very limited number of spaces within the hereditament. | 2.0% |
| As above, but typically with an 80% to 90% building ratio, limited parking, external lighting and landscaping and some boundary fencing. | 2.5% |
| Site typically with 50%/75% building ratio, some landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, adequate parking, external lighting and landscaping with limited general parking within the hereditament and boundary fencing. | 5.0% |
| As above, but typically with 25%/50% building ratio, landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, external lighting, adequate parking within the hereditament which falls short of full requirements. | 7.5% |
| Site typically with about 25% building ratio, landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, external lighting and adequate parking within the hereditament for all staff and other users. | 12.5% |
It is emphasised that the table above is for guidance and the external works at a tennis centre are to be individually considered as necessary.
4.3 Land Values
| Description | £ per Hectare |
|---|---|
| All of England and Wales except Central London (North and South) | Apply Amenity Value to the site area in accordance with the 2023 Land Value Practice Note |
| Central London (North and South) (To be read in conjunction with the note below) | Apply Industrial Value (less 20%) to the site area in accordance with the 2023 Land Value Practice Note |
Note Where a tennis centre is located within Central London(N &S) and has been built on land previously used as public open space the amenity value applicable to Greater London NW is to be applied in place of Industrial value (less 20%). Likewise, if a tennis centre within Central London could, without detriment to the local community which it serves, be located in a part of Greater London then the land value applicable to that part of Greater London should be adopted.
1. Market Appraisal
The Lawn Tennis Association (the LTA) is the governing body of tennis and originally encouraged the development of Tennis Centres through its Indoor Tennis Initiative. The 2014 Annual Report confirms a period of change from 2015 for the LTA with a new mission statement of aiming to get more people playing tennis more often, whether that be in tennis clubs or on parkland. This is in response to disappointing surveys by Sport England showing less people engaging in tennis in October 2013 (777,900) to October 2014 (694,100). The LTA continue to support high performance, though going forward there will be more emphasis on grass roots, operated from 5 devolved regions. One of the fall-outs of this is the vacation of elite tennis, other than the occasional training camp from the National Tennis Centre based in Roehampton.
During 2014 the LTA continued to provide grants and loans to assist with refurbishment and floodlighting of park and club courts. Rainford Tennis club (Lancs) was awarded a grant for 3 new courts, Halton Tennis Centre (Bucks) received LTA support to convert four courts for all weather use and a commitment to assist with funding in respect of the redevelopment of the Graves Tennis Centre in Sheffield. In total 160 new or refurbished tennis courts were delivered with LTA and partner funding.
“True” tennis centres within the meaning ascribed by the main RM section are no longer being developed.
2. Changes from the last Practice note
No changes, other than updated costs.
3. Ratepayers discussions
No discussions have taken place with the LTA, or their appointed agents.
4. Valuation scheme
The method of valuation remains as before, the contractor’s basis.
4.1 - Main structures
CG Ref 53U30F -
CG Ref 53U30F -
| Tennis Halls | CG Ref STBO20 | £674 per sqm |
| Tennis Courts 1 (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30F | £41,300 for 1 Court |
| Tennis Courts 1 (Macadam - SEPCA standard) | CG Ref 53U30F | £67,917 for 2 Courts |
| For multiple courts and for Tennis Court Type 3 | CG Ref 53U30F | |
| Tennis Court Covers/Bubbles | ||
| Single skin including foundation | CG Ref 53U15F - | £77,915 |
| Double skin including foundation | CG Ref 53U16A - | £116,777 |
Lighting columns and lamps should be individually cost by reference to the cost guide.
Contract Size Adjustment - to be applied in accordance with the Cost Guide
Location Factors - to be applied in accordance with the Cost Guide (or Rating Manual:Section 4 - Part 3)
Stage 2 - Age and Obsolescence - Monsanto allowances to be applied.
4.2 External Works
| Description | Adopted % |
| Town centre or island site typically with 90% or greater building ratio, no more than a small yard or garden area, and either no car parking, or a very limited number of spaces within the hereditament. | 2.0% |
| As above, but typically with an 80% to 90% building ratio, limited parking, external lighting and landscaping and some boundary fencing. | 2.5% |
| Site typically with 50%/75% building ratio, some landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, adequate parking, external lighting and landscaping with limited general parking within the hereditament and boundary fencing. | 5.0% |
| As above, but typically with 25%/50% building ratio, landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, external lighting, adequate parking within the hereditament which falls short of full requirements. | 7.5% |
| Site typically with about 25% building ratio, landscaping around buildings, secure boundary fencing, external lighting and adequate parking within the hereditament for all staff and other users. | 12.5% |
It is emphasised that the table above is for guidance and the external works at a tennis centre are to be individually considered as necessary.
4.3 Land Values
| Description | £ per Hectare |
| All of England and Wales except Central London (North and South) | Apply Amenity Value to the site area in accordance with the 2017 Land Value Practice Note |
| Central London (North and South) (To be read in conjunction with the note below) | Apply Industrial Value (less 20%) to the site area in accordance with the 2017 Land Value Practice Note |
| Note Where a tennis centre is located within Central London(N &S) and has been built on land previously used as public open space the amenity value applicable to Greater London NW is to be applied in place of Industrial value (less 20%). Likewise, if a tennis centre within Central London could, without detriment to the local community which it serves, be located in a part of Greater London then the land value applicable to that part of Greater London should be adopted. |