Cost Comparison Between the Main Types of Safer Surfaces

  • With so many different types of safer surfacing available, including synthetic tiles, wet pour rubber and loose impact absorbing surfaces, all varying substantially in price, how do they really compare, in cost terms, over a long period?

  • Independent cost comparisons for a 18 metre x 20 metre area, i.e. 360m², based on September 1999 costs, with no account taken for inflation or interest, show the following comparisons.

  • It has been assumed that all workmanship and materials comply with BS EN 1176 and BS EN 1177, have been tested in accordance with the requirements of BS 7188:1998 and have been installed in accordance with the Association of Play Industries "Code of Good Practice".
Loose Impact Absorbing Surfaces

Capital Cost
To supply all labour and materials to construct an "above ground" bark pit, to achieve a critical fall height of 2.50 metres + = £2,437
Using Melcourt Playbark® 10/50 at 300mm depth + 10% for natural settlement requires 119m³ @ £27.00 per m³ = £3,213
Total = £5,650
Maintenance Costs
1 man for 2 hours per week x 50 weeks
per year		 = £1,200
Top up every 3 years.
Labour @ £500 + materials @ £270		 = £770



Black Impact Absorbent Tiles

Capital Cost
To supply and lay on suitable base, 360m² of tiles (68m² of 2.50 CFH; 80m²of 2.10 CFH; 80M² of 1.50 CFH and 132m² of 20mm anti-erosion tiles)
Total = £21,022

Maintenance Costs
One man for 0.5 hour per week x50
weeks per year		 = £300
Repair of tile joints and worn areas
every 4 years		 = £700



Black Wet Pour Rubber

Capital Costs
To supply and lay on suitable base, 360m²,to give similar critical fall height results,as for black absorbent tiles, as above
Total = £25,347

Maintenance Costs
One man for 0.5 hour per week x50
weeks per year		 = £300
Repair of worn areas every 4 years = £600




Table to Show Summary of Costs Over a 10 Year Period

Year LIAS TILES WET POUR
Capital
£		 Maintenance
£		 Capital
£		 Maintenance
£		 Capital
£		 Maintenance
£

1 5,650
1,200
 21,022
300
 25,347
300
2
1,200
300
300
3
1,200770
300
300
4 1,200
300700
300600
5
1,200
300
300
6
1,200770
300
300
7
1,200
300
300
8 1,200
300700
300600
9
1,200770
300
300
10
1,200
300
300
TOTAL 5,650 14,310 21,022 4,400 25,347 4,200
£19,960 £25,422 £29,547



Graph to Illustrate Costs Shown Above



    The following conclusions can be reached:

  • The initial capital cost of LIAS is 73% cheaper than tiles and 78% cheaper than wet pour.

  • All types of surface require daily maintenance, as shown. Over a 10 year period, taking the capital cost and maintenance cost together, tiles are 27% more expensive than LIAS, whilst wet pour is 48% more expensive than LIAS.

    The LIAS costing has been based on bark material, costing an average of £27.00 per m³. If a wood based LIAS has been used, the cost per m³ would be in the region of £18.00, i.e. a 33% cost reduction.

    The tiles and wet pour costing has been based on a black finish. If a coloured finish were required, the capital cost of both of these product types would need to be increased by up to 10%.

  • The critical fall height for bark LIAS would be in the region of 5.11 metres, and wood based LIAS 4.48 metres; where as the critical fall height of tiles and wet pour would only be 2.50 metres maximum.

  • A LIAS has a "second life". After the 10 year period, the material could effectively be used as an organic soil ameliorant, or mulch. No account has been allowed for this in the costing.

  • If compound interest were taken into account, because of the substantially higher initial costs of tiles and wet pour, LIAS would provide even greater value for money.

  • When considering larger areas, LIAS would become even cheaper, over a 10 year period.

  • Wet pour would generally be more expensive than tiles.

  • It is likely that the raw material costs of wet pour and tiles would rise faster than LIAS, as they are manufactured from exhaustible and high energy demanding ingredients.

    Of the total budget for a play area, it is far better to spend more money on equipment for the children, than to allocate excessive sums for "over specified" surfacing.