Resurfacing old pitches – the pitfalls to look out for

Sadly, our industry has not always built good bases for artificial grass pitches, certainly not as good as contractors do today. The standard of pitch construction 10 and more years ago was much lower, and was most often based on lowest tender price wins. The work itself was not always properly and independently controlled and mistakes covered up. This means that some pitches that are coming up for replacement, do not have good bases.

This can lead to additional and unexpected costs at the time of resurfacing the playing surface. We look at the pitfalls that may lie beneath the turf and how best to prepare for bad news.

1. The base:

The “go-to” base build system in the UK involves a layer of asphalt or porous tarmac laid on top of a depth of stone. The theory is that a well built “engineered” base can keep its levels and porosity far longer than an unbound base. However, experience shows that some bases are not built well – the macadam is too open and uneven, the base stone not compacted and possibly sinking into the ground beneath. This means that remedial work is needed to rectify level issues, and this is not cheap or easy.

Another type of base system uses just stone, which “locks” together to create a compacted, level free-draining base. Again, poor workmanship means that when the surface is replaced, some re-grading of the stone is needed. Whilst this is frustrating, it can be done at a low cost and quite easily.

2. The performance pad:

On many older fields, originally designed for hockey or multi-sport, an insitu (rubber shock pad laid by a paver) is laid on top of the base. The thickness of this layer is designated as 15mm, but in reality varies from 10mm to 20mm+, if the stone or tarmac layer is not level. This is not ideal, but passes tests because the end levels are within tolerance.

However, the quality of insitu pads has been even more variable than the bases, they are laid on, which means that the pad often needs to be repaired or replaced. If the latter option is chosen, it is quite simply, opening a can of worms. From what looked like a simple turf replacement project, work may now be needed to restore the levels in the tarmac or stone; in other words, a base reconstruction, before the new shock pad can be laid.

So what can you do?

1. When looking at a surface replacement, seek advice from experienced consultants or contractors, who have worked with old bases before. They will better explain what needs to be done, and prepare you for the proposed work and give you options on how to proceed.
2. If the turf is laid onto an “engineered” base or unbound system, allow a contingency sum to repair problematic areas. Your consultant or contractor can advise on an appropriate amount.
3. Look at the insitu shock pad and consider patching and over-spraying to hold it together. This may not resolve errors from the existing construction, but may provide a base good enough for the lifetime of the next surface.
4. Ensure that whatever work is carried out is monitored and tested to the appropriate standards on completion.