The surface may look similar at completion, but a new field and a resurfacing project have very different information requirements, risks and responsibilities.
New Field
Typical fitGreenfield or complete reconstruction projects where the supporting field system is being designed from the start.
What it offers
Base, drainage and turf can be coordinated together
Field geometry and access can be designed around the programme
Clear opportunity to define responsibilities early
What to review
—Requires survey and civil design
—Drainage discharge and construction access must be planned
—Surface procurement should not run ahead of supporting design
Hard-Base Conversion
Typical fitExisting hard courts or slabs being converted to an artificial turf sports use.
What it offers
Can reuse an existing footprint
May reduce some civil scope where the base is suitable
Useful for selected school and community conversions
What to review
—Cracking, levels, thresholds and drainage need review
—Existing construction may not suit the proposed sport
—Edge and transition details can govern the final build-up
Synthetic Resurfacing
Typical fitExisting artificial fields where the upper system is being replaced or upgraded.
What it offers
Existing field geometry and infrastructure may be retained
Can target worn surface layers
Historic field information can help define the new brief
What to review
—Existing shock pad should not be assumed reusable
—Drainage or settlement problems must be identified first
—Removal, infill recovery and disposal need a clear owner
Project decision inputs
Use these factors before choosing a pathway.
01Survey / levels02Existing base construction03Drainage condition04Existing shock layer05Historic testing / certification06Removal and recovery strategy07Construction access08Target downtime
Essential site functions work without analytics. With your permission, Apollo uses analytics to understand which products, guides and project pathways are useful. Analytics stays off until you allow it.