REGIONAL AQUATIC FACILITY SITE SUITABILITY AND … · Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability & Feasibility Study Final Report Prepared for Georges River Council 21/05/2020 Page

REGIONAL AQUATIC FACILITY SITE SUITABILITY AND FEASIBILITY STUDY

FINAL REPORT

MAY 2020

Prepared for Georges River Council

REPORT SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

OTIUM PLANNING GROUP PTY LTD

Document History

Document Version Date Checked Distribution Recipient

Final Draft Report 18/12/2019 Mike King Georges River Council Luke Coleman

Final Report 21/05/2020 Mike King Georges River Council Luke Coleman

© 2019 Otium Planning Group Pty. Ltd. This document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the terms of engagement for the commission.

Head Office:

304/91 Murphy Street

Richmond VIC 3121

Phone: (03) 9698 7300

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.otiumplanning.com.au

ABN: 30 605 962 169

ACN: 605 962 169

NSW Office

Address: 1/273 Alfred Street North

North Sydney 2060

Contact: Michael King

Phone: 0417 536 198

Email: [email protected]

Otium Planning Group has offices in:

• Auckland

• Brisbane

• Cairns

• Christchurch

• Melbourne

• Perth

• Sydney OPG, IVG and PTA Partnership has offices in Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Shanghai and Beijing


Otium Planning Group National Expertise Local Understanding Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

1. Introduction 7

1.1 Project Scope 7

1.2 Project Outputs 7

1.3 Project Methodology 8

1.4 Project Reports 10

2. Why do We Need a Regional Aquatic Facilities Strategy? 11

2.1 What is our Aquatic Leisure Facility History? 11

2.2 Where Are We Today? 12

3. What we Know about our Current Aquatic Facilities? 14

3.1 Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre 14

3.1.1 HALC Facilities 14

3.1.2 HALC Visitations 15

3.1.3 HALC Operational Financial Review 16

3.1.4 HALC Capital Improvement Review 17

3.1.5 HALC User Catchments 17

3.1.6 HALC User Survey Key Findings 19

3.2 Kogarah War Memorial Pool – Carss Park 20

3.2.1 KWMP Facilities 21

3.2.2 KWMP Visitations 21

3.2.3 KWMP Operational Financial Review 22

3.2.4 KWMP Capital Improvement/Asset Maintenance Review 22

3.2.5 KWMP User Catchments 23

3.2.6 KWMP Former User Survey Key Findings 24

3.3 Sans Souci Leisure Centre 26

3.3.1 SSLC Facilities 26

3.3.2 SSLC Visitations 27

3.3.3 SSLC Operational Financial Review 27

3.3.4 SSLC Capital Improvement/Asset Maintenance Review 27

3.3.5 SSLC User Catchments 28

3.3.6 SSLC User Survey Key Findings 30

4. Who is Our Community Now and, In the Future? 31

4.1 GRC Population Age Profile 34

5. What You Have Told Us 36

5.1 Aquatic Leisure Participation and Future Needs Research 36

5.2 Resident Telephone Aquatic Participation Survey 38

5.2.1 Respondent Profile 38

5.2.2 Current Use of Swimming Pools 39

5.2.3 Reasons for Non-use 39

5.2.4 Most Popular Swimming Pools 40

5.2.5 Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (HALC) 41

5.2.6 Sans Souci Leisure Centre (SSLC) 42


Otium Planning Group National Expertise Local Understanding Page ii

5.2.7 Kogarah War Memorial Pool (KWMP) 44

5.2.8 Activities Undertaken at Swimming Pools 45

5.2.9 Future Facility Use 46

5.3 Public Submissions 47

5.4 Combined Aquatic Leisure Centre User Survey Result Trends 49

6. What Industry Trends and Challenges Do We Need to Consider 52

6.1 Aquatic Facility Trends 52

6.2 Components that Maximise User Attraction and Markets 54

6.3 Other Trends and Challenges 55

6.4 Review of a Sample of Sydney Outdoor Swimming Pools 56

6.5 Sydney Metropolitan Area Aquatic Facility Development Projects 56

6.6 Major Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Trends 57

7. Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Development 59

7.1 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Demand Findings 59

7.2 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Planning Guide 59

7.3 Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Components 60

7.4 Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Car Parking 61

7.5 Indicative Capital Cost Estimates 66

7.6 Review of Sydney Metro Regional Aquatic Leisure Centres 66

8. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review 68

8.1 Successful and Sustainable Site Assessment Criteria 68

8.2 Sites that Were Assessed 70

8.2.1 Site 1 - Kogarah Stadium, Kogarah 71

8.2.2 Site 2 - Todd Park, Blakehurst 74

8.2.3 Site 3 – Kogarah War Memorial Pool, Carss Park 75

8.2.4 Site 4 - Sans Souci Leisure Centre 76

8.3 Site Assessment Criteria Review 77

8.3.1 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Score and Key Findings 83

9. Final Draft Report Public Submissions Summary 86

9.1 Final Draft Report Public Submission Themes 86

9.2 Final Draft Report Information Themes 89

10. Project Findings and Recommendations 91

10.1 Project Recommendations 96

11. Warranties and Disclaimers 97


Otium Planning Group National Expertise Local Understanding Page iii

DIRECTORY OF TABLES

Table 1: Project Methodology 8 Table 2: HALC Facilities by Main Activity Areas 14 Table 3: HALC Visitations by Main Activities 16 Table 4: Past Three Years HALC Capital Improvement Funding 17 Table 5: HALC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 17 Table 6: HALC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036 18 Table 7: KWMP Facilities by Main Activity Areas 21 Table 8: KWMP Visitations by Main Activities 21 Table 9: KWMP Monthly Visitations 2018/19 22 Table 10: KWMP Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 23 Table 11: KWMP Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036 24 Table 12: KWMP Former Users Survey Key Findings 25 Table 13: SSLC Facilities by Main Activity Areas 26 Table 14: SSLC Past Three Years Capital Funding Summary 28 Table 15: SSLC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 28 Table 16: SSLC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036 30 Table 17: GRC and Adjoining LGA Current and Future Population 33 Table 18: Resident Survey Respondent Sample 38 Table 19: Household Telephone Survey Use of Aquatic Facilities 39 Table 20: Reasons for Lack of Use of Aquatic Facilities 40 Table 21: Most Popular and Used Swimming Pools 40 Table 22: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre 42 Table 23: Visiting the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre 42 Table 24: Frequency of Visitation to Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre 42 Table 25: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Sans Souci Leisure Centre 43 Table 26: Visiting the Sans Souci Leisure Centre 43 Table 27: Frequency of Visitation to Sans Souci Leisure Centre 43 Table 28: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Kogarah War Memorial Pool 44 Table 29: Visiting the Kogarah War Memorial Pool 44 Table 30: Frequency of Visitation to Kogarah War Memorial Pool 45 Table 31: Future Use of Swimming Pools/Leisure Centres 46 Table 32: Future Priority Features for Swimming Pools 47 Table 33: Reasons for Non-Increase of Use of Swimming Pools 47 Table 34: Public Submission Current Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues 48 Table 35: Public Submission Future Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues 49 Table 36 Combined Aquatic Leisure Centre User Survey – Key Questions Summary 50 Table 37: Major Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Review 58 Table 38: Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Components Summary 61 Table 39: Georges River Council Regional Aquatic Centre Notional Facility Components, Area Schedules and

Options 62 Table 40: Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Area Requirements 68 Table 41: Estimated Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Services Requirements 78 Table 42: Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review 79 Table 43: Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review Score and Key Findings 83 Table 44: Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Recommendations 96

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 – Georges River Council Catchment Area Population Profile 98


Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability & Feasibility Study Final Report Prepared for Georges River Council 21/05/2020 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION Georges River Council (GRC) commissioned the Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability and Feasibility Study to inform the Council’s plans for any development of future aquatic facilities within the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) required to accommodate the current/future needs of the local and regional population. The project scope and outputs are listed in Section 1.1 and 1.2 of this report and this has guided the project team’s planning and analysis work. GRC is committed to supporting residents and visitors to the city to participate in active and healthy lifestyles to help improve their wellbeing. Council recognises that provision of aquatic leisure facilities plays an important role in contributing to the wellbeing of their community, supporting improvements in physical and mental health, providing an environment to build social networks and connections and develop core healthy active life skills. In order to meet the GRC’s community contemporary and changing aquatic and leisure needs, an integrated Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Strategy is needed that:

• Considers how people use aquatic facilities now and what are the current and likely future aquatic

needs of residents.

• The changing city’s population age, gender, cultural mix characteristics.

• Where residents currently live and where in the future the predicted 31,890+ more residents by 2036 will live.

• The ongoing upgrade, renewal and eventual redevelopment or replacement of facilities.

2. RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Provision of aquatic leisure facilities in any community is always a high interest and feedback topic. In Georges River LGA, with the closure of the Kogarah War Memorial Pool early into the study commencement plus the closedown of Sans Souci Leisure Centre outdoor pools due to pump failure later in the study has ensured people have wanted to have their say.

A summary of the community engagement and market research processes completed is detailed in the following graphic.

14

MARKET RESEARCH COMPLETED

• Household Telephone Survey -600 completed

• Aquatic Participation Survey – 187 completed

• Public submissions 283 completed

• HALC User Survey 473 completed

• KWMP Past User Survey 209 completed

• SSLC User Survey 33 completed

• 30 Sydney Metro Facilities surveyed & 16 facilities provided data

• Review of future Sydney Aquatic Leisure centre Development – 7 facility case studies

• Successful Aquatic & Leisure Facility Trend Review.

• Successful and sustainable ALC facility trends identified

Resident Surveys Aquatic User Surveys

Comparative Facility Reviews

Aquatic Industry Trends



Due to the large number of public submissions and survey responses there was a large amount of information collected. This has been put into its own market research document which is titled Volume Two Report - GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research.

3. FINAL REPORT This report was initially prepared to a final draft report stage in late December 2019. Council put the report on public display from the 23 December 2019 to the 28 February 2020 seeking community members and interested persons feedback and submissions on the report. Council also organised four project forums in mid-February 2020 to assist with information on the project and final draft report and providing a forum for participants to discuss key issues. In excess of 400 submissions were received following review of the final draft report and a summary of key issues from submissions is listed in Section 9 of the report. 4. PROJECT KEY FINDINGS This report covers more than nine months of research, engagement, consultation on the need for a Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (RALC) in the GRC area. The market research and industry trend findings indicate there is substantial need, unmet demand and public support for a new RALC in the GRC area to meet current and future residents demand for aquatic leisure facilities created by:

• Ageing and non-contemporary facilities.

• Facilities that don’t have the activity areas to meet all potential user markets.

• An increasing population that will continue to increase resulting in some areas higher density development planned.

• Closure of Kogarah War Memorial Pool which had been attracting more than 60,000 visits annually.

• Non financially sustainable outdoor aquatic facilities at KWMP costing on average $450,000 to $550,000 annually to operate.

• Concern by residents on the closure of KWMP and the lack of a 50-metre pool in the LGA. The household telephone survey results clearly document residents low use of aquatic leisure centres and shows residents living in the GRC area currently make lower than average use of aquatic facilities compared to other Sydney Metropolitan Council Areas surveyed over the past few years. Survey findings indicate only 36% of residents had visited/used an aquatic leisure centre in the past 12 months. When extrapolated against current population this equates to approximately 55,000 GRC residents using aquatic leisure facilities whilst just under 100,000 residents are not making use of such facilities. Otium Planning Group (OPG) has completed more than 20 similar aquatic participation surveys and have found in surrounding Sydney LGAs facility aquatic leisure facility usage rates of 50% to 60% of the population. This also indicates Council can stimulate residents’ aquatic leisure activity rates. The studies key findings based on the study scope/outputs are detailed as follows. 1. Demand and Need for a New Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (RALC) The studies’ market research and community engagement processes clearly highlight the need and support for a new RALC in the GRC area. Development of a contemporary RALC that offers high use attractor activity areas, programs and services to a broad range of user markets is likely to directly stimulate residents current low use of such facilities. The population and participation gap analysis indicate that Council needs to develop a regional size facility designed to cater for 100,000 plus residents which at this size can attract high revenues to directly assist in meeting Council’s operational and asset renewal sustainability objectives.



2. Opportunities to improve Resident Access to Aquatic Facilities Development of a state-of-the-art RALC will provide significant opportunity to improve resident access to Aquatic facilities. To ensure maximum attraction and use and a sustainable facility, it is recommended it contains the following high requested facility components (see Section 7.2 for detailed component brief of the 9,534m2 footplate building): Aquatic Areas

• Multi-use 50 metre x 10 lane FINA compliant swimming pool with access ramp and moveable boom or swim wall (may be indoor or outdoor subject to further business modelling)

• Shared program/learn to swim and leisure pool with toddler’s water area

• Warm water program pool with adjoining spas and saunas

• Water play and splash pad

• Waterslides and adventure water Health, Fitness and Wellness Facilities

• Gym and weight facilities

• Group fitness rooms

• Wellness centre Social and Retail Facilities

• Café and social area

• Merchandise area

• Community/function/meeting areas Customer Service Facilities

• 300 vehicle carparks

• Plant rooms and amenities Further feasibility work should be completed on complimentary community activity areas that could be added, such as indoor sport, childcare, library services, health care and community and social services. 3. Most Suitable Site for Development of a Sustainable & High Use Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (RALC) Section 8 of the report provides a detailed analysis of four potential sites against the criteria used to measure successful and sustainable sites for the development of the proposed RALC. The recommendation upon completion of the feasibility study is that Council adopt, in principle, Todd Park as the proposed site for the facility and undertake detailed site investigations at this recommended site. The Todd Park site locates the new facility within a large potential user catchment area as well as taking into consideration the future expanding population catchment. Todd Park is a highly visible location on the Princes Highway with an estimated 52,000 plus vehicle movements past the site on weekdays. The site provides the largest level land area of 4.15ha. Due to its large site capacity this location can adequately cater for other community facility co-locations as well as potential future facility expansion for indoor sport, wellness and community services. The next step in the process if for Council to undertake more detailed, site specific service, utility, geotechnical and civil investigations to ensure that this site can support the development proposed.



Many of these investigation items require detailed testing and the development of a construction footplate drawing to enable planning and service authorities to provide the required information. It is therefore recommended that Council agree in principle that Todd Park is the most suitable site for the proposed RALC and complete the following further detailed site investigations:

• Site ground level reviews to see what the recommended site will cost to develop in relation to excavation and civil works.

• Development of a construction footplate plan to test the need for civil works such as site levelling, cut and fill or terracing.

• Complete a detailed available services review (power, water, gas, telecommunications) and future services capacity against the service needs of the development.

• Ground condition review including soil tests for foundations, water table etc.

• Contamination soil review to test if site has contaminated soil cost impacts.

• Environmental and heritage impact reviews.

• Design opportunities – Preliminary concept design development to see how design and components can be best delivered functionally at this site.

• Environmental sustainability review to test best ESD orientation options, design and component functional options and any restrictions to design such as site levels etc.

• Indicative cost of development review– capital cost plan to see if site has any cost issues related to

development/design.

• Review of options to relocate clubs/users, currently using the site and identification of cost and social/community impacts.

4. Indicative Capital Development Cost Estimate When applying current, known construction costs for similar facilities in Metropolitan Sydney to a 9,500m2 facility footplate development, the likely capital cost for this development would be in the order of $52.6M to $57.4M. Additional costs will be incurred for car parking and access roads, services upgrades and landscaping. Collectively this could take the total project cost estimates at the preplan stage to between $55M - $60M. It is essential in the next phase of planning that schematic concept footplate plans are completed to guide site investigations. An experienced Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Quantity Surveyor must then be engaged to develop an indicative cost plan to guide the project budget and funding strategy. 5. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding and Staging Industry trends indicate there is now a significant precedent when large regional facilities are being planned that they are able to be staged (based on a masterplan design approach). Shared funding model precedents are now also common place for a large range of projects, therefore Council should not have to provide all the funding. Section 6.5 of the report provides a range of shared funded aquatic leisure facility projects across Australia to document these funding precedents. It will be critical in order to attract significant funding support for this project that Council develops a comprehensive shared funding strategy based on other major projects. Council should plan for up to $20M in funding support from the Commonwealth and State Government with each contributing $10M. If this funding support can be achieved, then the overall project cost to Council could be in the order of $35M to $40M.



6. Operational Sustainability A review of Council’s current and historical operation of its three aquatic facilities indicates that the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre raises sufficient income to meet the full cost of management, operations, asset renewal and depreciation. Conversely, the annual operation and depreciation costs for the Kogarah War Memorial Pool have cost Council in the order of $450,000 to $550,000 annually. A review of similar indoor and outdoor aquatic leisure facilities in Sydney supports these operational sustainability trends with all outdoor pools reviewed (see Section 6.4) recording operating losses whilst all but two of the large aquatic leisure centres in Sydney (see Section 7.6) also operating with surpluses after operating costs. This highlights the need for Council to develop the recommended components at a high-profile site to attract high use (sustainable facility target of 700,000 to 800,000+ annual visits) to raise sufficient income to meet operating and asset maintenance and renewal costs. 7. Compatibility with the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facility Strategy OPG has reviewed and used Council’s adopted community facility planning guide (see Section 7.2) to help scope the proposed RALC and its recommended siting. OPG also endorses the recommended facility development policy of clustering and connecting other potential complimentary community facilities and building capacity in the longer term for this to occur in order to develop a true community activity and social hub. 8. Consideration of Regional Aquatic Facility Development in Surrounding LGAs Market research and interviews with surrounding LGAs indicate no proposed new aquatic facility development to the south and west of the Georges River LGA area. There are proposed existing aquatic facility upgrades to the north and the west, but no funding or timing of these projects is known at this stage. The recommended siting of the RALC at Todd Park takes into account known future surrounding LGA aquatic facility development. 5. PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the project findings against the key study outputs OPG makes the following project recommendations to GRC (refer to table on the following page).



Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Recommendations

Category Recommendation

1. Demand and Need for a Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre

That Council recognise and endorse the study’s findings for the need to develop a sustainable and high use Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre to best meet current and future resident aquatic leisure needs.

2. Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Priority Components

To ensure maximum user attraction and sustainable operations Council adopt the recommended facility component schedule as listed in Section 7.2 of this report.

3. Most Suitable Site for the Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre

That Council agree in principle that Todd Park is the most suitable site for the proposed Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre and provide funds to complete detailed site assessment to provide further site information for Council to consider a final site report including:


• Development of a concept footplate plan to test if need for civil works such as site levelling, cut and fill or terracing.

• Complete a detailed available services review (power, water, gas etc) and future services capacity against the service needs of the development.

• Ground condition review, soil tests for foundations, water table etc.




• Environmental sustainability review to test best ESD orientation options, design & component functional options and any restrictions to design such as site levels etc.

• Indicative cost of development review–capital cost plan to see if site has any cost issues related to development/design.

• Review on options to relocate clubs/users, currently using the site and what are the cost and social/community impacts.

4. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Preliminary Business Case/Plan

Should the site investigations identify that the site and preliminary cost estimates are favourable Council should determine whether it wishes to develop a preliminary business case. Should Council decide it wishes to proceed on this basis Council should commission a Regional Aquatic Centre Preliminary Business Case and Plan to provide advice on management, operations, usage and financial sustainability for the proposed facility.

5. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Project Staging and Funding Strategy

That Council form a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Strategy Group to review and identify project costs, timing, staging and develop a recommended future funding strategy for the project.

6. Review of Detailed Site, Business Plan and Funding Strategy Findings

That Council use the detailed site, business plan and funding strategy findings to help assess if it will adopt the development of a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre as a future community facility priority project.



1. Introduction

Georges River Council (GRC) commissioned the Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability and Feasibility Study to inform the Council’s plans for any development of aquatic facilities within the Georges River Local Government Area (LGA) required to accommodate the future needs of the local and regional population The Council has recently completed an Open Space, Recreation and Community Facility Strategy that includes analysis of existing facilities within the LGA that will be a fundamental source document for this project. During close off of tenders and appointment of the planning company in July 2019, the Kogarah War Memorial Pool had to be closed.

1.1 Project Scope

The Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability and Feasibility Study Project Scope included:

• The identification of whether a suitable site exists in the Georges River LGA (having regard to the likely footprint/size of the facility, location and environmental constraints) to accommodate a regional aquatic facility;

• Consideration of the Carss Park recreation and sporting precinct along with existing master planning in other sporting precincts;

• Opportunities to improve public access to aquatic facilities in the city, including year-round recreational usage and the hosting of elite-level competitions;

• Complementary activities that could be co-located within the facility such as indoor courts, gymnasium, childcare and library services, dining and rehabilitation/health care services, wellness centre, elite coaching/sports education, community meeting rooms and car parking;

• The preparation of funding options for the facility, including opportunities to stage the construction and funding of the facility over time;

• The projected financial sustainability of the facility given the variety of services offered at a suitable site, and the market forces surrounding the location such as the projected demand and proximity to other facilities;

• Consideration of the outcomes of the draft Open Space, Recreation and Community Facility Strategy and other strategic studies that are currently being prepared (such as the Foreshore Strategy and Carss Park Sport and Recreation Precinct Masterplan and the Jubilee Stadium Precinct Master Plan); and

• Consideration of the future needs of the region in regard to neighbouring Council aquatic facilities

and the alignment of existing Georges River LGA aquatic facilities to the accepted industry hierarchy of aquatic facilities in Australia.

1.2 Project Outputs

The project report as required to deliver the following study elements:

1. Policy, strategic studies and relevant documents review.

2. Research, data collection and benchmarking.

3. Stakeholder engagement:

• Internal: council staff and management in relevant disciplines such as assets, infrastructure, planning, sport and recreation, property and facilities.

• External: market research surveys including household random sample, aquatic centre user surveys, public submissions, general resident participation survey and GRC aquatic facility management interviews.

4. Financial analysis in regard to funding and sustainability modelling.



5. Aquatic Leisure Facility Trends.

6. Site assessment using industry accepted site assessment criteria.

7. Draft Report.

8. Councillor Workshop.

9. Final Report.

1.3 Project Methodology

Otium Planning Group Pty Ltd – Sport and Leisure Planners (OPG) were appointed to complete the study in mid-August 2019. The following table details the project methodology completed by the consultant team. Table 1: Project Methodology

Stages Task Detail Deliverables

Stage 1: Background

1. Project Inception Meeting

OPG representatives met with Council representatives to complete a project inception meeting to review and confirm:

• Project methodology

• Internal and external engagement strategy

• Market research to be included in the study

• Reporting processes

• Project timelines

• Collect all relevant reports.

Project inception meeting completed.

2. Update GRC Aquatic Facilities Operational Data

OPG contacted Council’s three aquatic facility managers to update operational and visitation data for each Council facility for the past five years. SSLC did not want to participate.

Up to date aquatic facility usage trends data.

3. Update site and facility plans

OPG collected the latest site and facility plans for each of the three facilities.

Up to date site and facility plans.

4. Previous Research Review

OPG summarised all relevant previous research including documenting the outcomes of the draft Open Space, Recreation and Community Facility Strategy and reviewing all documents as listed in the project brief.

Up to date research review.

5. Update Competitor Facility Mapping

OPG completed aquatic and leisure facility competitor data and mapping.

Up to date competitor facility mapping.

6. Aquatic facility User Catchment Mapping

OPG developed travel time population catchment maps for 2016 and 2036 for the Council area and each aquatic facility.

Travel time population catchment maps.

7. Current Aquatic Leisure Facility Provision Paper

OPG summarised the key findings from all stage one research into a current aquatic facilities background paper.

Stage one current Aquatic Facilities Background Paper.

Stage Two: Research and Consultation

8. Resident Telephone Survey

OPG retained Fieldworks, a market research company to complete a telephone survey of a randomly statistical sample of 600 residents to identify their current and future aquatic participation and facility needs.

Independent market research to identify current and likely future aquatic participation and facility use.

9. GRC Aquatic facility User Surveys

OPG worked with each centres’ management to offer user surveys to be completed by customers for an 8-week period. SSLC did not agree to participate.

User survey results to identify catchments, most popular activities and future improvement priorities.




10. Schools Aquatic Facility Use Survey

OPG sent surveys to all schools in the GRC area to help identify their aquatic facility use and future use issues. This was poorly returned with only 3 schools participating.

Schools aquatic facility user trends and future facility needs.

11. Internal Stakeholder Interviews

OPG completed a range of internal stakeholder interviews with Council nominated representatives.

Engagement findings from internal stakeholders.

12 Aquatic Facility Trends

OPG completed an aquatic facility trends review including facility hierarchy review, Sydney Metro Aquatic Facility Review and Sydney Metro Future Facilities Review.

Aquatic facility trends paper.

13. Aquatic Facility Needs, Demands and Trends Paper

OPG combined the findings of the stage two research into an aquatic facility needs, demands and trends paper.

Aquatic facility needs, demands and trends paper to guide future planning.

Stage Three: Future Aquatic Facility Site Suitability and Feasibility Study Report

14. Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Component Brief

OPG utilised all findings from the first two study stages to develop a notional regional aquatic leisure centre component brief. This brief identified key components and required functional relationships and area dimensions to guide future development footplates. It also included recommended other complimentary community activities that can be added to aquatic leisure facilities (as identified in the market research and engagement stage) to make them more sustainable.

Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Component Brief including complimentary activity areas.

15. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Usage and Financial Projections

OPG will developed up an indicative operational model for the proposed regional aquatic leisure centre to help guide key business performance as well as information on car parking requirements linked to expected visitations, access impacts and neighbourhood impacts that need consideration.

Likely annual usage and business projections.

16. Site Assessment Review

OPG worked with Council Officers to review potential sites to accommodate a regional aquatic leisure centre taking into account the larger catchment areas, footprint/size/scale, location, access, site conditions, residential and environmental impacts. All nominated sites were assessed using the OPG aquatic facility successful site selection criteria (16 criteria used).

Future site assessment report.

17. Detailed Priority Site Assessment Review

Based on the scores allocated to the sites OPG worked with Council Officers on more detailed reviews of the two highest score sites.

Detailed review of priority future sites.

18. Indicative Capital Cost Guide

OPG retained an experienced quantity surveyor to provide an indicate capital cost guide to the proposed facility.

Indicative capital cost guide.

19. Funding Options and Opportunities

OPG completed a funding options and opportunities review for the proposed facility.

Funding options and opportunities review.




20. Draft Regional Aquatic Facility Strategy

OPG utilised all findings from the three completed study stages to guide the development of the Draft Regional Aquatic Facility Strategy including recommended site/s and sustainability.

Draft Regional Aquatic Facility Strategy and Recommended Site.

21. Review of Draft Regional Aquatic Facility Strategy

OPG completed Officer and Councillor briefing forums on the strategy findings and recommendations.

Councillor and Officer Forums to review draft strategy.

22. Final Strategy Report

Following Councillor and Officer forums and community review period feedback OPG completed the Georges River Council Regional Aquatic Facility Site and Feasibility Study Report.

Final report completed

1.4 Project Reports

OPG has developed two volumes of reports for this project as there was considerable interest in completing surveys and public submissions which, due to the large number of pages, has required the following two reports to be completed:

• Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Suitability and Feasibility Study Final Draft Report.

• Volume Two - Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Suitability & Feasibility Study Market Research Summary.



2. Why do We Need a Regional Aquatic Facilities Strategy?

Georges River Council (GRC) is committed to supporting residents in and visitors to the city to participate in active and healthy lifestyles to help improve their wellbeing. Council recognises that provision of aquatic leisure facilities plays an important role in contributing to the wellbeing of their community, supporting improvements in physical and mental health, providing an environment to build social networks and connections and develop core healthy active life skills.

In order to meet the GRC’s community’s contemporary and changing aquatic and leisure needs, an integrated Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Strategy is needed that:

• Considers how people use aquatic facilities now and what are the current and likely future aquatic needs of residents.

• The changing city’s population age, gender, cultural mix characteristics.

• Where residents currently live and where in the future the predicted 31,890+ more residents by 2036 will live.

• The ongoing upgrade, renewal and eventual redevelopment or replacement of facilities

2.1 What is our Aquatic Leisure Facility History?

The GRC is the local government area located in the St George region of Sydney, south of the CBD, in New South Wales, Australia. The Council was formed on 12 May 2016 from the merger of the Kogarah City Council and Hurstville City Council. The Council now comprises an area of 38.36 square kilometres and as at the 2016 census had a population of 153,451 residents. The Councils’ amalgamation in 2016 resulted in Sydney’s most visited Aquatic Leisure Centre - the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (1.2M visits annually) being managed by the new Council in association with Sans Souci Leisure Centre (indoor outdoor pools and gym) and Kogarah War Memorial Pool (outdoor pools and gym). Kogarah War Memorial Pool (KWMP) has since been closed by Council in July 2019, following investigation of environmental impacts caused by the pools discharge and leaking of water into the adjoining Georges River.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_government_in_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_George_(Sydney)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_central_business_district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Kogarah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Kogarah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Hurstville

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Australia#2016


Ongoing technical reports completed at KWMP in 2011, 2016 and in 2019 have indicated ongoing settlement and movement of the main pool has been an issue since 1989. Past and present Councils had tried to keep the pool facility open through ongoing patching and maintenance to pool structures, tiles and joints. The investigations in July 2019 clearly showed the pool had substantial leaks and had to be drained and closed to comply with the NSW Environmental Authority Order to prevent the pollution of adjoining waters. Council operates their aquatic leisure centres under a range of mixed management systems being:

• Contract management at Hurstville Aquatic Centre where the contractor pays Council annual fees for management rights and Council pays services and maintenance costs.

• Commercial lease at Sans Souci Leisure Centre where the lease pays Council an annual lease fee and Council pays maintenance costs.

• Up until closure, the Kogarah War Memorial Pool was operated since July 2017 under a management contract where Council pays all operating costs including the contractor’s staff and services costs.

The age and condition of the three Council pools differs slightly with Kogarah War Memorial Pool and Sans Souci Leisure Centre both being constructed at the same time and opened some 54 years ago in 1965. The Hurstville Aquatic Leisure centre was opened in 1995 and a second stage redevelopment providing indoor sport courts and enlarged health and fitness areas was opened in 2004. Sans Souci Leisure Centre had a new indoor 25m pool and expanded health and fitness areas added to the outdoor pools in 2008. In 2017/18 Council invested more than $3M in refurbishing the outdoor 50 metre pool, replaced plant and pipework and upgraded amenities and grounds.

2.2 Where Are We Today?

Council today faces a range of significant Aquatic Leisure facility issues with the 54 year old Kogarah War Memorial Pool now closed, the Sans Souci Leisure Centre outdoor pools also aged at 54 years old but refurbished to ensure they are operational for years to come and the 24 year old Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre also aging but still recording more than 1.2m visits annually with no capacity to increase aquatic facilities at this site.



This is also at a time where the city’s resident population is continuing to increase each year whilst resident’s aquatic and leisure activity choices continue to expand as well as change as people age and experience different life stages. In August 2019 Council commissioned this study to investigate and help determine if there was sufficient demand and capacity to develop a new regional aquatic leisure centre. If such a facility was determined to be needed then the study was also commissioned to identify what activity components/areas would best meet unmet current and future demand, attract ongoing high use to be financially sustainable whilst siting it in the best location to meet the majority of current and future resident’s aquatic leisure needs.

This study aims to review and answer these challenges by providing a long-term planning and facility provision strategy for all people, ages, interests and abilities.



3. What we Know about our Current Aquatic Facilities?

The GRC has two current operating aquatic leisure facilities and a recently closed outdoor aquatic facility with health and fitness facilities. This section provides an overview of information available for each Council facility (excluding financial and commercial in confidence information related to operating contracts and leases).

3.1 Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

The Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (HALC) is located on the corner of King Georges Road and Forest Road, Hurstville. It was opened in 1995 and soon became one of Sydney’s most used aquatic leisure centres. It was extended in 2004 with three indoor sport courts, an expanded health and fitness centre and more carparking.

Figure 1: Aerial View of Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre Council has always contracted the management of HALC and the current management company Bluefit has now had over 10 years as contract manager of the centre since it was awarded the contract on the 9th of July 2009. The following sections provide an overview of HALC visitations, financial performance, user catchments and managements ideas on future development at the facility/site.

3.1.1 HALC Facilities

Current HALC facilities are listed in the following table. Table 2: HALC Facilities by Main Activity Areas

Activity Area

Indoor Aquatics • 25m x 8 lane indoor pool with linked free form leisure pool/beach entry

• Indoor leisure pool has sprays and waterslide area

• Warm water learn to swim pool

• Spas and sauna

Outdoor Aquatics • Outdoor waterslide and lawn/courtyard area

Health and Fitness • Weights area including cardio, free weights, functional training, weight machines and warm up and stretching areas

• 3 x group fitness rooms used for spin classes, pilates and aerobics

Indoor Sport Courts • 3 x indoor sport courts with separate entry to aquatic facilities

Customer and Service Areas • Kiosk/café and retail area

• Wet and dry change facilities

• Administrative offices

• Creche

• Plant rooms

• 350 onsite car parks at grade and part basement parking under the sports hall.



Future HALC expansion plans have been approved by Council and include:

• Internal main court grandstand

• 2 indoor multi-sport courts

• Extended change facilities

• New gymnastics space

• Updated/new cafe area

• Outdoor deck

• Landscaping. Business modelling by centre management anticipates attracting a further 100,000 to 150,000 plus visits to the centre once these improvements are opened and programs, classes and competitions are established/consolidated. No further aquatic or health and fitness facilities are proposed in future development stages due to a lack of space and carparking on site.

3.1.2 HALC Visitations

The table on the next page summarises HALC Visitations by main activity for the past two years.



Table 3: HALC Visitations by Main Activities

Area Entry 2017/18 2018/19

Aquatic Casual Swim and Squad 58,698 52,790

Spectator 6,916 5,895

Child Under 5 3,615 3,012

Visit Pass 68,692 61,804

Learn to Swim 152,454 158,307

Students out of hours 994 2,212

Learn to Swim Parents 182,945 189,968

School Entry 72,214 67,441

Aqua Classes 12,741 14,179

Total Aquatic 559,269 555,608

Health Club Member 302,277 295,022

Visit Pass 1,368 919

Casual 1,446 1,359

Staff 2,455 2,708

Group Fitness 70,268 73,788

Total Health Club 377,814 373,796

Stadium Learn to Play 17,921 23,845

Learn to Play Parents 21,505 28,614

Stadium Competition 121,125 106,493

Stadium Spectators 30,281 26,623

Total Stadium 190,832 185,575

Other Areas Creche 19,263 25,122

Training Courses 6,000 6,000

Children's Programs 6,000 75,500

Total Other Areas 31,263 106,622

Total Visits All Areas 1,159,178 1,221,602

Visitation data indicates more than one third of visits to HALC are aquatic related (550,000+) whilst more than 370,000 visits are for health and fitness visits. Just over 10% of centre visits are for indoor sport related activities. Historically HALC usage trends indicate the centre has continued to increase its annual visitations from opening in 1995 at an estimated 350,000 visits to a high of more than 1.4M annual visits in 2015/2016. The opening of the close by Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre (AAAC) at Bexley, by Bayside Council, in January 2017 has directly impacted on HALC attendances which fell in 2017/18 to 1.159M but increased back to 1.221M in 2018/19 with new children’s programs recording the highest visitation growth. HALC management indicates the biggest impact has been in learn to swim enrolment and school visit numbers where AAAC has attracted a significant number of former HALC users/school groups to these programs as the new centre is less crowded and can offer classes at times HALC cannot (as it has limited unused water space).

3.1.3 HALC Operational Financial Review

Operational income and expenditure details have been removed from this report as they are commercial and confidential recognising Council periodically tenders management of this facility. A review of the past three years operational budgets indicates payments made to Council for management rights have met all HALC operational costs plus also meet annual asset renewal and depreciation allowances. It should be noted that OPG works across Australia and New Zealand and is only aware of one other Local Government Authority Aquatic Leisure Centre, in Melbourne (Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre) that meets all of its operating costs.



3.1.4 HALC Capital Improvement Review

A review of Council’s past three years capital funding for HALC indicates the following capital improvement allowances were made. Table 4: Past Three Years HALC Capital Improvement Funding

HALC Past Three Years Capital Expenditure Capital Cost

Airconditioning repairs $46,309

Pool bridge replacement $65,765

Gym equipment replacement $258,314

Other plant and equipment replacement $157,677

Total GRC Capital Funding $528,065

The review indicates Council is continuing to invest in HALC asset renewal with more than $528,000 in capital works funded by Council in the past three years.

3.1.5 HALC User Catchments

OPG has developed user catchment maps for HALC to identify and review the likely user catchment population within the primary catchment zone of the facility. Please note aquatic leisure industry trends indicate the primary catchment of users is likely to be within a 5 kilometre or 15 minutes’ drive of facilities.

1. 2016 ABS Population Data

The HALC Primary User Catchment Population Map using 2016 ABS census data and also showing the location of competitor aquatic leisure facilities is listed on the next page. The user catchment review indicates the following population within the centres primary zone user catchment. Table 5: HALC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data

Catchment Area 2016 ABS Population

Male Female 0 to 14

years old 15 to 34 years old

35 to 54 years old

55 years old and older

0 to 1 KM 20,956 10,279 10,669 2,811 8,987 4,866 4,250

1 to 2 KM 46,227 22,584 23,601 7,665 14,756 12,069 11,641

2 to 3 KM 52,425 25,697 26,755 9,553 13,581 14,357 15,003

3 to 4 KM 59,554 29,362 30,265 10,112 17,686 15,616 16,297

4 to 5 KM 85,540 41,852 43,687 15,509 21,946 23,549 24,534

Total Primary Catchment Population

264,701 129,774 134,977 45,651 76,956 70,457 71,725

Source: ABS Census 2016

The HALC Primary Catchment Zone Population data review indicates HALC is well placed with more than 264,700 people living within a 5km radius of the centre. The age profile also shows a large number of people aged 55 years and over in this catchment. The HALC primary catchment user zone map indicates from a competitor facility perspective the following facilities are located within the 5km catchment zone:

• 0 to 1km: Col Jones Swim School

• 1km to 2km: No competitor facilities

• 2km to 3km: Kogarah War Memorial Pool and Hurstville Learn to Swim Centre

• 3km to 4km: Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre, Bexley

• 4km to 5km: Sans Souci Leisure Centre, Peakhurst West Swimming Centre, Como Swimming Centre and Roselands Leisure and Aquatic Centre.



The mapping also clearly shows that all three Council facilities are located within a 5km radius of each other.

Figure 2: HALC Primary Catchment User Zone Map

2. 2036 Population Projections

The projected 2036 population projections compared with the 2016 ABS current population for the HALC Primary Catchment User Zone is listed in the table below. Table 6: HALC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036

Catchment Area 2016 ABS Population 2036 Projected Population Variance 2016 to 2036

Population

0 to 1 KM 20,956 21,765 +809

1 to 2 KM 46,227 53,027 +6,800

2 to 3 KM 52,425 61,913 +9,488

3 to 4 KM 59,554 64,239 +4,685

4 to 5 KM 85,540 129,186 +43,646


264,701 330,130 +65,429

Note: future projections are based on i.d profile data and should be used as a general guide only.

The current and future population data for the HALC Primary Catchment User Zone indicates that the largest future population growth will occur between 3km to 5km of HALC (+48,331 or 73% of predicted population growth) which indicates to minimise future HALC competition any new regional aquatic leisure facility would be best located in this outer zone.



3.1.6 HALC User Survey Key Findings

A total of 473 HALC User Surveys were completed by interested people. A detailed write up of the survey results is listed in the Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research Report. Key issues related to current and future facilities are summarised from the detailed findings as follows.

Question/Issue Top 6 Responses

Main reasons choose to use HALC • Close to home - 76.1%

• Learn to swim programs - 24.5%

• To attend health and fitness program/class - 21.8%

• To use gym and fitness equipment - 21.4%

• Good facilities - 17.8%

• I am a member - 16.9%

Main Activities do when visit HALC • Lap swim/fitness - 28.8%

• Learn to swim class - 27.3%

• Group health & fitness classes e.g. Aerobics - 26.4%

• Recreation swimming/fun - 26.0%

• Use gym/weights - 25.5%

• Take child to pool - 20.4%

Main Areas of Concern/Unhappy with HALC

• Facility cleaning/presentation - 43.9%

• Indoor swimming pools to crowded - 36.9%

• Centre overall is too crowded - 26.8%

• Size and quality of changerooms - 26.3%

• Not enough car parking onsite - 21.2%

• Air quality in pool hall - 18.4%

Use of Other Aquatic Leisure Centres • Only use HALC - 39.7%

• Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre Bexley - 24.5%

• Sutherland Leisure Centre - 17.7%

• Roseland Aquatic Centre - 13.5%

• Sans Souci Leisure Centre - 10.1%

• Col Jones Swim and Fitness Hurstville - 8.7%

Future Use of Aquatic Leisure Centres • Yes - 88.8%

• No - 11.2%

Priority Future Improvements to Encourage More Use

• Cleaner more hygienic facilities - 71.1%

• Improved amenities - 30.8%

• Increased gym/weights and health/fitness facilities - 23.2%

• Warm, water program pool/older adult facilities - 23.2%

• Indoor/outdoor waterslides – 17.9%

• Better/new children’s pools, facilities for families – 15.0%



3.2 Kogarah War Memorial Pool – Carss Park

The Kogarah War Memorial Pool (KWMP) is located at 78 Carwar Avenue Carss Park. A website search of the history of development of the pool found: “The pool was built on reclaimed land just slightly north of Carss Cottage and could have been opened for the start of the 1965 swimming season, but the Dept of Health prevented the opening until the toilets within the enclosed area were completed. The pool was opened for public use on December 26, 1965 and on October 1, 1966 an official ceremony dedicated it as The Kogarah War Memorial Olympic Swimming Pool in honour of all men and women who had served Australia in war.” Source: “Carss Park” written by Beverley Earnshaw and published Kogarah, N.S.W. : Kogarah Historical Society, c2009.

KWMP was opened in late 1965, in the same year as the Sans Souci Leisure Centre. The centre was operated under an ongoing agreement to local swimming coach Dick Caine for more than 50 years. The KWMP was a part funded Federal Government War Memorial Pool that also was funded by local resident and RSL fund raising and Local Government funding GRC assumed ownership of the facility as part of the Council amalgamation process in May 2016. Council took back management of the facility in July 2017. Bluefit (the contract manager of HALC) managed the facilities on behalf of Council until the KWMP was closed by Council in July 2019. The closure was following investigation of environmental impacts caused by the pools discharge and leaking of water into the adjoining Georges River and a subsequent order from NSW EPA. In closing the KWMP Council noted in its publication Kogarah War Memorial Pool Closure Monday 29th of July 2019 “that ongoing technical reports completed at KWMP in 2011, 2016 and in 2019 have indicated ongoing settlement and movement of the main pool has been an issue since 1989. Past and present Councils had tried to keep the pool facility open through ongoing patching and maintenance to pool structures, tiles and joints. Further investigations in July 2019 clearly showed the pool had substantial leaks and was closed, drained to comply with the NSW Environmental Authority Order to prevent the pollution of adjoining waters”. An aerial view of the KWMP and surrounding parkland and waterways is detailed as follows.

Figure 3: Aerial View of Kogarah War Memorial Pool



3.2.1 KWMP Facilities

Current KWMP facilities are listed in the following table. Table 7: KWMP Facilities by Main Activity Areas

Activity Area

Outdoor Aquatics • Outdoor 50 metre x 7 lane heated pool

• Outdoor program 15m x 7m heated pool

Health and Fitness • Undercover weights area including free weights, functional training, weight machines and warm up and stretching areas

• 1 x group fitness/cardio room

Customer and Service Areas • Kiosk/café and retail area as part of entry and exit area

• Change facilities

• Massage room

• Plant room

• Approximately 100 onsite car parks at grade

3.2.2 KWMP Visitations

The following table summarises KWMP Visitations by main activity for the past two years. Table 8: KWMP Visitations by Main Activities

Area Entry 2017/18 2018/19

Aquatic Casual Swim and Squad 10,543 10,446

Spectator 1,122 630

Child Under 5 3 1

Visit Pass 1,411 3,394

Squad 15,468 16,828

Squad Parents 18,562 20,374

School Entry 5,554 3,883

Total Aquatic 52,663 55,556

Health Club Member 4,572 5,937

Visit Pass 0 0

Casual 954 807

Staff 21 222

Total Health Club 5,547 6,966

Total Visits All Areas 58,210 62,522

Visitation data indicates more than 90% of visits to KWMP are aquatic related (52,000 to 56,000) whilst health and fitness related are less than 10%. Historically the previous operator was not required to report to Council on annual visitations, so the above two years are the only visitation data available for this facility. A review of this data highlights significant more than half the use is by swim squad users/parents with the next biggest entry categories being casual swim/squad and schools’ entry.



Figure 4: Kogarah War Memorial Pool

A review of monthly visits for the 2018/19 season showed the following visitation trends. Table 9: KWMP Monthly Visitations 2018/19

Category July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June Total

Monthly Visits

1,611 1,880 3,151 5,278 5,447 7,489 9,626 10,697 6,228 4,772 3,990 2,352 62,522

The monthly visitations indicate highest visit months are the warmer months of October through to March where visits average 5,500 to 10,700/month (1,375 to 2,675 visits/week). In colder months visitations drop considerably to 1,600 to 2,000/month (400 to 500 visits/week).

3.2.3 KWMP Operational Financial Review

Operational income and expenditure details have been removed from this report as they are commercial and confidential recognising Council had commercial management systems at this facility. A review of the past three years operational budgets indicates that due to low patronage and revenue no payments are made to Council for management and Council meets all operational costs. The annual cost to Council to operate the KWMP as an all year-round open facility has been in the order of $450,000 to $550,000 a year which includes after deduction of all income raised meeting all operating costs and depreciation allowances. It should be noted that OPG works across Australia and New Zealand and is not aware of any other Local Government Authority Outdoor Swimming Pool with small gym Aquatic Leisure Centre that meets its operating costs. The CERM Performance Indicators (Centre for Environmental Recreation Management – University of South Australia) categorises outdoor pools as category 5 pools and average performance indicators for such centres showed in 2017/18:

• Average annual operating subsidy saw annual income represent 51% of operating costs compared to approximately 40% at KWMP.

• Average annual attendances were 43,750 visits compared to 62,500 at KWMP.

• Subsidy per visit: $4.60 compared to $7.50 at KWMP.

3.2.4 KWMP Capital Improvement/Asset Maintenance Review

A review of Council’s past three years capital funding for KWMP indicates no capital improvement funds were allocated to this facility excluding asset maintenance works and labour to keep the facility operational at a



cost of $130,518 for maintenance and infrastructure works $204,257. This saw a combined asset management/maintenance cost of $334,775 expended by Council in the past three years.

3.2.5 KWMP User Catchments

OPG has developed user catchment maps for KWMP to identify and review the likely user catchment population within the primary catchment zone of the facility. Please note aquatic leisure industry trends indicate the primary catchment of users is likely to be within a 5 kilometre or 15 minutes’ drive of facilities.


The KWMP Primary User Catchment Population Map using 2016 ABS census data and also shows the location of competitor aquatic leisure facilities is listed on the next page. The user catchment review indicates the following population within the centres primary zone user catchment. Table 10: KWMP Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data


Male Female 0 to 14


35 to 54 years old


0 to 1 KM 5,344 2,584 2,749 974 1199 1464 1694

1 to 2 KM 23,996 11,739 12,268 4391 5932 6730 6989

2 to 3 KM 49,733 24,305 25,491 7739 15608 12822 13545

3 to 4 KM 60,843 29,759 31,065 10223 18980 15735 15870

4 to 5 KM 72,813 35,895 36,911 12719 21344 19912 19013


212,729 104,282 108,484 36,046 63,063 56,663 57,111


The KWMP Primary Catchment Zone Population data review indicates KWMP has approximately 212,729 people living within a 5km radius of the centre. The age profile also shows a large spread of age groups with people aged 15 to 34 years (63,063) being the largest age group in this catchment followed by people aged 55 years and older (57,111) and 35 to 54 years old (56,663). The KWMP primary catchment user zone map indicates from a competitor facility perspective the following facilities are located within the 5km catchment zone:

• 0 to 1KM: No competitor facilities

• 1km to 2km: Sans Souci Leisure Centre

• 2km to 3km: Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre, Col Jones Swim & Fitness Centre Hurstville

• 3km to 4km: Fitness First Sylvania

• 4km to 5km: Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre, Hurstville Learn to Swim Centre and Como Swimming Centre.

The mapping on the following page clearly shows that all three Council facilities are located within a 5km radius of each other.



Figure 5: KWMP Primary Catchment User Zone Map


The projected 2036 population projections compared with the 2016 ABS current population for the KWMP Primary Catchment User Zone are listed in the following table. Table 11: KWMP Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036


Population

0 to 1 KM 5,344 6,252 +908

1 to 2 KM 23,996 47,417 +23,421

2 to 3 KM 49,733 63,631 +13,898

3 to 4 KM 60,843 64,929 +4,086

4 to 5 KM 72,813 76,953 +4,140


212,729 259,182 +46,452


The current and future population data for the KWMP Primary Catchment User Zone indicates that the largest future population growth will occur from 1km to 2km (+23,421 or 50.4% of predicted population growth).

3.2.6 KWMP Former User Survey Key Findings

As the KWMP was closed when the user surveys were conducted, it was set up to hear from former users. A total of 209 KWMP former user surveys were completed by interested people. A detailed write up of the survey results are listed in the Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research Report. Key issues related to current and future facilities are summarised from the detailed findings as follows.



Table 12: KWMP Former Users Survey Key Findings

Question/Issue Top 6 Responses

Main reasons choose to use KWMP • Close to home - 72.2%

• Has outdoor pools - 63.2%

• Open all year round - 33.5%

• Friends/family use it - 25.5%

• Good facilities - 23.6%

• To use outdoor pool grounds - 22.6%

Main Activities do when visit KWMP • Lap swim/fitness - 73.2%

• Recreation swimming/fun - 38.5%

• Swim squad activity - 29.6%

• Cool down from hot weather - 28.2%

• Take child to pool - 27.7%

• Meet with friends and family - 27.7%

Main Areas of Concern/Unhappy with KWMP

• Café and food/beverage services - 16.8%

• Facility cleaning/presentation - 15.3%

• Outdoor pool grounds - 10.8%

• Size and quality of changerooms - 8.9%

• No warm water program pool - 8.4%

• Limited health and fitness facilities - 7.9%

Use of Other Aquatic Leisure Centres • Sans Souci Leisure Centre - 44.7%

• Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre Bexley - 43.2%

• Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre -21.8%

• Sutherland Leisure Centre - 21.8%

• Only use KWMP - 12.6%

• Roseland Aquatic Centre - 12.1%

Future Use of Aquatic Leisure Centres • Yes - 97.6%

• No - 2.4%


• Better/new children’s pools, facilities for families - 53.1%

• Outdoor heated pools - 51.7%

• Cleaner more hygienic facilities - 40.3%

• Warm, water program pool/older adult facilities - 36.7%

• Improved amenities - 34.8%

• Improved café and beverage area - 23.2%



3.3 Sans Souci Leisure Centre

The Sans Souci Leisure Centre (SSLC) is located at 521 Rocky Point Road Sans Souci.

SSLC was opened in late 1965, in the same year as Kogarah War Memorial Pool. The Centre had a new indoor 25m pool and expanded health and fitness areas added to the outdoor pools in 2008. In 2017/18 Council invested more than $3M in refurbishing the outdoor 50m pool, replaced plant and pipework and upgraded amenities and grounds. The indoor facilities were funded by the commercial lease company that was leasing the facilities and in return for funding this company was granted a 10-year management lease. GRC assumed ownership of the facility as part of the Council amalgamation process in May 2016. Council renewed the second term of the lease for a further 10-year option in in 2018. An aerial view of the SSLC and surrounding parkland and waterways is detailed as follows.

Figure 6 : Sans Souci Leisure Centre

3.3.1 SSLC Facilities

Current SSLC facilities are listed in the following table. Table 13: SSLC Facilities by Main Activity Areas

Activity Area

Indoor Aquatics • Indoor 25m pool x 3 lanes and a 17m learn to swim pool x 3 lanes

Outdoor Aquatics • Outdoor 50m x 7 lane heated pool

• Outdoor program 10m x 6m heated pool

Health and Fitness • Leased to F45 Training and includes weights area including free weights, functional training, weight machines and warm up and stretching areas

• 1 x group fitness room.

Customer and Service Areas • Kiosk/café and retail area as part of entry and exit area.

• Indoor pool changeroom facilities

• Plant rooms

• Approx. 8 accessible onsite car parks at grade

• Main carparking is at adjacent parkland



Following is an aerial photo of the pool site and adjacent parkland, car parking and water ways.

Figure 7: Aerial photo of Sans Souci Leisure Centre

3.3.2 SSLC Visitations

The Centre is managed under a commercial lease and under the terms of the lease the lessor does not have to provide Council with any visitation or operating information. The lessor was invited to participate in the project by providing information but decided to not participate or provide any information. This has meant the consultant team do not have any information as to the visitations, type of usage and where people who use the centre live to help guide this study. The only visitation data that has been able to be collected is by way of SSLC users who were identified from the household telephone survey which is covered in Section 5.2 of this report.

3.3.3 SSLC Operational Financial Review

Operational income and expenditure details have been removed from this report as they are commercial and confidential recognising Council has commercial leasing arrangements at this facility. A review of the past three years’ operational budgets indicates Council breaks even or paid a slight operating cost after annual lease fees were deducted.

3.3.4 SSLC Capital Improvement/Asset Maintenance Review

A review of Council’s past three years capital funding for SSLC indicates significant capital improvement funds were allocated to this facility but with State grant funding assisting in part funding capital improvements.



The following table highlights Council’s capital funding invested at SSLC in the past three years. Table 14: SSLC Past Three Years Capital Funding Summary

Capital Improvement Works Capital Cost

Outdoor pools remediation and refurbishment $1,768,532

Amenities and plantroom upgrades $1,438,488

Total Capital Improvement Costs $3,207,020

3.3.5 SSLC User Catchments

OPG has developed user catchment maps for SSLC to identify and review the likely user catchment population within the primary catchment zone of the facility. Please note aquatic leisure industry trends indicate the primary catchment of users is likely to be within a 5 kilometre or 15 minutes’ drive of facilities.


The SSLC Primary User Catchment Population Map using 2016 ABS census data and also shows the location of competitor aquatic leisure facilities is listed on the next page. The user catchment review indicates the following population within the centres primary zone user catchment. Table 15: SSLC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data


Male Female 0 to 14


35 to 54 years old


0 to 1 KM 3691 1740 1965 644 707 1027 1321

1 to 2 KM 12763 6119 6615 2100 2750 3516 4399

2 to 3 KM 24452 11819 12667 4414 5382 6684 7988

3 to 4 KM 45,743 22,413 23,376 8327 12263 12521 12623

4 to 5 KM 73,312 35,857 37,507 12394 23236 19201 18552


159,961 77,948 82,130 27,879 44,338 42,949 44,883


The SSLC Primary Catchment Zone Population data review indicates SSLC has approximately 159,961 people living within a 5km radius of the centre. The age profile also shows a large spread of age groups with people aged 55 years and over (44,883) being the largest age group in this catchment followed by people aged 15 to 34 years (44,338) and 35 to 54 years old (42,949). It should also be noted that there is a very low number of people aged 0 to 14 years in this facility’s user catchment zone compared to HALC and KWMP zones.



Figure 8: SSLC Primary Catchment User Zone Map The SSLC primary catchment user zone map indicates from a competitor facility perspective the following facilities are located within the 5km user catchment zone:

• 0 to 1km: No competitor facilities

• 1km to 2km: Kogarah War Memorial Pool

• 2km to 3km: Fitness First Sylvania

• 3km to 4km: No competitor facilities

• 4km to 5km: Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre and Col Jones Swim & Fitness Centre. The mapping clearly shows that all three Council facilities are located within a 5km radius of each other. It should also be noted that as the SSLC is located in the far south east corner of the Council area that a large majority of the population in these catchment areas reside in either Sutherland Shire or Bayside Council areas.


The projected 2036 population projections compared with the 2016 ABS current population for the SSLC Primary Catchment User Zone are listed in the table on the next page.



Table 16: SSLC Primary User Catchment Zone Population Data 2016 & 2036


Population

0 to 1 KM 3,691 4,023 +332

1 to 2 KM 12,763 11,358 -1,405

2 to 3 KM 24,452 50,529 +26,077

3 to 4 KM 45,743 71,134 +25,391

4 to 5 KM 73,312 79,640 +6,328


159,961 216,684 +56,723


The current and future population data for the SSLC Primary Catchment User Zone indicates that the largest future population growth will occur from 2km to 4km (+51,546 or 90.7% of predicted population growth) this clearly shows that the SSLC site is not a good site for future regional aquatic leisure facility development.

3.3.6 SSLC User Survey Key Findings

With SSLC management not participating in this study there was a very poor response to completing SSLC user surveys. There were only 33 surveys completed and this was regarded as too small a sample to compare results against the other facility surveys. OPG has written up the results of the SSLC user surveys and these are documented in the Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research Report.



4. Who is Our Community Now and, In the Future?

Council commissioned a major review of Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities in 2017/18 and this study was completed by Elton Consulting in association with OPG. This study provides a future facility strategy framework for Council community facility development. To guide its recommendations the report also presented a very detailed review of the current and future GRC population. To help identify community facilities need and demand and match it to where people in the GRC LGA live and will live in the future, the project team for this study broke the city up into six (6) linked catchment zones as identified in the following graphic.

Source: GRC Open Space, Recreation & Community Facilities Strategy – Elton Consulting/Otium Planning Group 2018/19

Figure 9: Georges River Council Catchment Zones

A summary of current resident population characteristic by catchment area are listed in Appendix 1 of this report. The community profile review for this study found that the current GRC population based on 2016 ABS data was estimated at 153,451 people. Future population projections indicated Council needed to plan



community facilities for an increasing number of people that by 2036 would number 185,346 residents living in the Georges River LGA. The following graphic shows the GRC LGA broken up into six catchment areas and highlights:

• The current population in the red box based on 2016 ABS Census data.

• The projected future population in the green box based on id profile population projections.

• The adjoining projected 2036 close-by LGA population in the yellow box based on id profile population projections


Figure 10: Georges River Council Catchment Zones Population Data



For aquatic facility provision planning please note that the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre is located in catchment 3 and both Sans Souci Leisure Centre and Kogarah War Memorial Pool are located in catchment 5. A summary of the current and future LGA population and adjoining LGA close-by population is listed in table 17 below. Table 17: GRC and Adjoining LGA Current and Future Population

GRC Catchment

Area

GRC 2016 Population

(ABS Census) #

GRC 2036 Population

Projections *

Change in Population 2016 to

2036

GRC and Adjoining LGA 2036 Population

Projections *

GRC Current Aquatic Centre catchment

Locations

1 20,981 24,345 +3,364 (16%) 45,626

2 19,081 23,460 +4,379 (23%) 23,460

3 34,953 37,930 +2,977 (9%) 37,930 Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

4 30,994 40,701 +9,707 (31%) 40,701

5 18,879 21,533 +2,654 (14%) 21,533

Sans Souci Leisure Centre Kogarah War Memorial Pool

6 28,563 37,377 +8,814 (+31%) 52,082

Total 153,451 185,346 +31,895 (+21%) 221,332

Source: # 2016 ABS Census, * id profile projections

The above table indicates:

• The current GRC area population at 2016 was 185,346 people.

• The highest concentration of people currently lives in catchment 3 (34,953) followed by catchment 4 (30,994), catchment 6 (28,563 people) and catchment 1 (20,981).

• Future population projections predict the GRC area population to increase by 31,895 people by 2036 to a total population of 185,346 people.

• The highest concentration of people in the future are projected to live in catchment 4 (40,701) followed by catchment 3 (37,930), catchment 6 (37,377 people) and catchment 1 (24,345).

• When adjoining LGA population projections are added to GRC 2036 population projections then catchment 6 at 52,082 people will service the largest number of people followed by catchment 1 at 45,626 people.

9

GEORGES RIVER COUNCIL CURRENT & FUTURE POPULATION

2016 153,451

2026 170,524

2036 185,346

GRC population projected to increase by 31,895,by 2036 (+20.7%)



The RALC planning implications from the population review indicates that Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre is located well to service catchments 1, 2, 3 and 4 which are estimated to have a combined 2036 GRC area population of 126,436 and with adjoining LGA close-by populations increasing these catchments to 147,717 people. Both Sans Souci Leisure Centre and Kogarah War Memorial Pool are located in catchment 5 which currently has the lowest population catchment (18,879) and this will still have the lowest population in 2036 population projections at 21,533 people. This indicates Council needs to consider locating a future RALC closer to the highest population catchments not serviced by Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre being catchment 5 and catchment 6.

4.1 GRC Population Age Profile

Aquatic Leisure Industry Trends indicate that younger age groups make much higher use of aquatic leisure facilities than older age groups unless specific older adult aquatic leisure facilities such as warm water program pools and gentle exercise areas are provided. A review of the GRC aquatic participation household survey (see Section 5.1 for detailed results) clearly shows this is the case currently with the following use of aquatic leisure centres in the past 12 months being:

• 15 to 34 years: 37% used an aquatic leisure centre in past 12 months

• 35 to 54 years: 54% used an aquatic leisure centre in past 12 months

• 55 years and older: 19% used an aquatic leisure centre in past 12 months A review of the current and future GRC population by age group is listed in the following graph.


Figure 11: GRC Current and Future Population by Age Group The GRC population age profiles for current and future population indicate a gradual aging of the GRC community which is consistent with Greater Sydney, NSW and National population aging trends.



The implications of these aging trends on the Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Study is that older adults (55 years and older) are currently using aquatic leisure centres at less than half of the younger age groups so it is critical in future planning as the city’s age profile increases that future facilities are also designed for this ageing demographic.



5. What You Have Told Us

Provision of aquatic leisure facilities has always been a high interest topic for most people in Australia which is partly due to our historical high use of pools and the hot and dry climate we live in as well as our population distribution that sees more than 80% of Australians living within 10 kms of the coast. Historically people living inland swam in rivers, lakes and dams whilst it was the coastal bays and ocean for those living by the coast. Traditional baths, more for personal bathing, started to appear around the country at the turn of the 20th Century and the Melbourne City Baths built in 1895 are still operating today. Tidal pools, especially around Sydney’s coastline and regional coastal areas such as Wollongong and Newcastle, were the first attempts at controlled swimming facilities and many of these tidal pools are still operational today. More formal land-based swimming areas did not start to appear in Sydney until the 1930s. One example of such a facility is the North Sydney Olympic Pool which was one of Sydney’s first land-based swimming pools that was developed on the Sydney Harbour Bridge construction site reclaimed land in the mid-1930s. This pool is still operating today but Council is facing a $60M redevelopment cost to upgrade and bring up to contemporary standards to meet resident needs. Web based historical research indicates people living in what is now the GRC area traditionally used the Georges River for swimming and there is history of tidal pools being developed included west of the current Sans Souci Leisure Centre (some facilities still visible) and in tidal pools adjacent to Carss Park. So, the local community have had a strong history and affinity to these traditional locations. In the 1960s, the then Councils, in association with local residents, developed formal land-based swimming facilities close to the former tidal pools at Carss Park and Sans Souci. In the 1990s, to better meet the contemporary and changing needs of aquatic leisure participants, the then Hurstville City Council invested in a “state of the art” Aquatic Leisure Centre which since opening in 1995 has now become the State’s most visited and financially sustainable aquatic leisure centre. In 2008 this centre was enlarged with new activity areas that have continued to attract even more visits. Also, in 2008, the then Kogarah Council supported a commercial company developing new indoor aquatic and health and fitness facilities at the Sans Souci outdoor pool site and this again saw a major change in aquatic leisure facility provision for people living in the southern areas of the LGA. In 2018, GRC invested more than $3.3M in renewing the outdoor pools and associated plant and equipment at Sans Souci Leisure Centre so they would continue to be open and operated. In July 2019 ongoing leaking of the Kogarah War Memorial Pool saw the closure of this facility due to environmental impact orders. So, this history and these development trends set the scene for hearing from people about future aquatic leisure facility needs in the GRC area. Key findings are covered in the following sections and detailed survey results are listed in a separate Volume Two Report – GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment & Feasibility Study Market Research Summary.

5.1 Aquatic Leisure Participation and Future Needs Research

A review of previous Council research indicates Council has not completed any formal research on residents’ aquatic leisure participation and future needs since the feasibility study completed for stage 1 of HALC (commissioned by former Hurstville City Council). This meant it was a high priority for this study to gather as much relevant resident information that could help guide the next decades of aquatic leisure facility provision in the Georges River LGA.



A range of community surveys and information collection processes were undertaken in order to gain an understanding of the thoughts and opinions of various different sectors of the community, in relation to current aquatic leisure participation and future facility needs. These included:

• Local resident aquatic leisure participation telephone survey using a random sample process to ensure the respondent profile best resembled the current GRC community profile.

• Electronic online and hard copy surveys were conducted to encourage users/former users of the Hurstville Aquatic Centre, Kogarah War Memorial Pool and Sans Souci Leisure Centres to provide information on their aquatic leisure participation and future use and facility component priorities.

• A public submission process for interested people to submit their thoughts and issues.

• An electronic online and hard copy survey of local resident’s aquatic leisure centre participation and future use and facility component priorities.

As part of the other market research processes, comparative facility reviews and aquatic leisure industry trends were also completed and these are covered in Section 6 and 7 of the report.

A summary of the community engagement and market research processes is detailed in the following graphic below.

Due to the large amount of information collected detailed documenting of the market research is covered in a separate Volume Two Report - GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research.

The following section covers a write up of the household telephone survey and key trends for the other surveys. It should be noted that the household survey is the key document to guide future facility strategy as this sample of survey respondents best represents an independent random sample of residents that is as close as possible matching the current GRC community profile. All other surveys and public submissions were contributed to by a range of people wanting to document their thoughts and ideas. This data therefore comes from a varied sample of interested people who may or may not be reflective of the city’s community profile. The public aquatic participation survey, facility user surveys and public submissions clearly provide information on what respondents want to tell Council about current and future aquatic facility demands and needs and this is also summed up at the end of this section of the report. The high community response rate (excluding SSLC user survey) is directly impacted by respondents concerned about the closure of the Kogarah War Memorial Pool (which occurred after this study was commissioned.). Failure of the SSLC outdoor pool pump that saw the outdoor pools close for a few weeks also was of concern and may have contributed to the high public submission lodgement.

14

MARKET RESEARCH COMPLETED

• Household Telephone Survey -600 completed

• Aquatic Participation Survey – 187 completed

• Public submissions 283 completed

• HALC User Survey 473 completed

• KWMP Past User Survey 209 completed

• SSLC User Survey 33 completed

• 30 Sydney Metro Facilities surveyed & 16 facilities provided data

• Review of future Sydney Aquatic Leisure centre Development – 7 facility case studies

• Successful Aquatic & Leisure Facility Trend Review.

• Successful and sustainable ALC facility trends identified

Resident Surveys Aquatic User Surveys

Comparative Facility Reviews

Aquatic Industry Trends



5.2 Resident Telephone Aquatic Participation Survey

This section summarises the key findings from the GRC Residents Telephone Survey that was conducted in October 2019. The survey mirrors the questions asked in the three facility user surveys and aquatic participation survey. The telephone survey involved 600 residents (aged 15 years and over) who were randomly selected across the postcodes based on demographic profile statistics to provide information on:

• Current use and non-use of swimming pools/leisure centres

• Future use or non-use of swimming pools/leisure centres

• Ratings and issues on current aquatic facilities

• Respondent profile.

The respondent profile was set up to match the population profile of people living in the GRC area by area, age and gender. All respondents were surveyed via telephone by an independent market research company, Field Works Pty Ltd. The survey questions were based on a range of OPG’s aquatic surveys standard questions and sought information on peoples’ use of public swimming pools/leisure facilities which include council, school, private and commercial centres, but not home facilities.

5.2.1 Respondent Profile

The following table summarises the residents’ telephone survey respondent sample. Table 18: Resident Survey Respondent Sample

Category Sub-Group Number %

Gender Female 300 50

Male 300 50

Age Range 15 – 19 years 11 2

20 – 24 years 32 5

25 – 34 years 131 22

35 – 44 years 93 16

45 – 54 years 108 18

55 – 64 years 95 16

65 – 74 years 66 11

75 years and older 55 9

Refused 9 2

Suburb Beverly Hills, Narwee (2209) 38 6

Lugarno, Peakhurst, Peakhurst Heights, Riverwood (2210) 85 14

Kogarah, Kogarah Bay, Beverley Park, Ramsgate, Ramsgate Beach, Monterey (2217)

93 16

Allawah, Carlton (2218) 58 10

Sans Souci (2219) 37 6

Hurstville, Hurstville Grove (2220) 112 19

Connells Point, Carss Park, Blakehurst, Kyle Bay, South Hurstville (2221)

59 10

Penshurst (2222) 45 8

Mortdale, Oatley (2223) 73 12

A review of the survey respondents sample indicates that there were equal numbers of males and females (50% each). The age bracket that represented the largest proportion of the survey pool was 25 to 34 years (22% of respondents) followed by 45 to 54 years (18%). The majority of survey respondents lived in Hurstville or Hurstville Grove – 2220 (19%), Kogarah, Kogarah Bay, Beverley Park, Ramsgate, Ramsgate Beach or Monterey – 2217 (16%) and Lugarno, Peakhurst, Peakhurst Heights, Riverwood – 2210 (14%).



5.2.2 Current Use of Swimming Pools

Survey respondents were questioned on their use of public swimming pools in the past 12 months. Public swimming pools included Council, school and commercial centres but not home pools. A total of thirty-six per cent (36%) of people had used or visited a pool in the past 12 months. Sixty-four per cent (64%) had not used or visited a pool in 12 months. Usage of swimming pools/leisure centres changed based on gender, as well as according to the age profile as indicated in the results listed in the table below. Table 19: Household Telephone Survey Use of Aquatic Facilities

Use of Aquatic Facilities

Total Responses

Males Females 15 to 34

Years

35 to 54

Years

55+

Years

Yes 36% 33% 40% 37% 54% 19%

No 64% 67% 60% 63% 46% 81%

The facility usage results indicate that just over three out of 10 people (36%) have used these facilities, with higher use by females than males (40% versus 33%). The age group that were most likely to use aquatic facilities were 35 to 54-year old (54% yes) while those over the age of 55 were more likely to have not used any aquatic facilities (only 19% having used such facilities).

5.2.3 Reasons for Non-use

More than six out of 10 respondents (64%) had not used a swimming pool in the previous 12 months. These respondents were asked to identify the main reasons for the lack of use of such facilities. The most commonly identified reasons are listed in the table on the following page.

15

HOUSEHOLD AQUATIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY

64% had not visited or used a pool in past 12

months

36% had visited or used a Pool In past 12 months

40% of females & only 33% of males used

poolsL

54% of people aged 35 to 54 years old used

pools

Only 19% of people aged 55 years and over

used pools

600 randomly selected residents surveyed on current and future use of aquatic and leisure facilities

Georges River Council Residents at 36% make much less use of pools than other Sydney LGA

Areas Surveyed (average 45% to 55% use)

Main Constraints why not using pools:• Go to beach 23%• Not interested 22%• Have own pool 21%• Too busy 16%• Pools not clean 7%• Cannot Swim 5%



Table 20: Reasons for Lack of Use of Aquatic Facilities

Reasons for Lack of Use of Swimming Pools % of Total Responses

Gender

Male % Female %

Go to the beach 23% 24% 23%

Not interested 22% 22% 23%

Have and use own pool 21% 20% 22%

Too busy 16% 19% 12%

Unhygienic/public pools not clean 7% 4% 10%

Don’t like swimming 7% 6% 8%

Can’t swim 5% 5% 4%

Too old 5% 3% 7%

Use neighbours/friends pool 4% 3% 6%

Health problems 2% 2% 3%

The two biggest constraints to use of facilities included going to the beach (23%) and not being interested (22%) followed by having and using own pool (21%) and being too busy (16%). Constraints that affect people’s use of pools can change depending upon their gender. Males are more likely to be go to the beach, be too busy and not be able to swim, while females are more likely to not be interested, have and use their own pool, consider public pools unhygienic, consider themselves to be too old and use neighbours/friends pool. The main constrains to use swimming pools can be categorised under a number of common themes being:

• Personal Issues: Not interested (22%), too busy (16%), don’t like swimming (7%), can’t swim (5%).

• Product Issues: Unhygienic/public pools not clean (7%).

• Placement Issues: Go to the beach (23%), have and use own pool (21%), use neighbours/friends pool (4%).

5.2.4 Most Popular Swimming Pools

Users of swimming pools were spread around a number of different facilities. A summary of the most used pools, compared to the pool people nominated as the one they use the most, is as follows: Table 21: Most Popular and Used Swimming Pools

Swimming Pools Used

in the Past 12 Months % of respondents

Facility Used the Most

in Past 12 Months

Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre, Hurstville 53% 45%

Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre Bexley 19% 14%

Sans Souci Leisure Centre 18% 16%

Kogarah War Memorial Pool/Carss Park Pool 10% 7%

Sutherland Leisure Centre, Sutherland 9% 6%

Roselands Aquatic Centre, Roselands 3% 2%

Peakhurst West Swimming Pool, Peakhurst 2% 1%

Col Jones Swim Fitness, Hurstville 2% 1%

Fitness First, Sylvania 1% 1%

Hurstville Learn to Swim Centre, Hurstville 1% -

Max Parker Leisure & Aquatic Centre, Revesby 1% 1%

Canterbury Leisure & Aquatic Centre, Canterbury 1% -

Como Swimming Pool, Como 0% 0%

Other 7% 6%



The current facility usage indicates that all three council-owned aquatic facilities in Georges River are within the top four aquatic facilities. Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre had been used by 53% of respondents in the preceding 12 months, Sans Souci Leisure Centre had been used by 18% and Kogarah War Memorial Pool had been used by 10% of the respondents. The facility that was in second spot on the list was Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre which is owned by Bayside Council and was used by 19% of respondents. Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre was also the most frequently identified aquatic facility when survey respondents were asked to identify their most used pool (45% of respondents) while Sans Souci Leisure Centre moved up one place to be the second most frequently identified pool with 16% of respondents. Nearly seventy per cent (68%) of respondents identified that a pool owned by the GRC was their most commonly used pool.

5.2.5 Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (HALC)

Survey respondents who identified that they had visited or used HALC in the previous 12 months were asked a range of questions relating to their use of the facility.

Rating of Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

Survey respondents who had used HALC were asked to rate the current facilities and services under a 5-point rating system. The results were:

• Excellent 15% 62% (Combined excellent/good rating)

• Good 47% • Adequate 28% • Quite Poor 9%

11% (Combined quite poor/very poor rating) • Very Poor 2%

Choosing Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

The main reasons for choosing HALC were identified, with the majority of respondents identifying the proximity to home was the key reason for their choice (78%). This was followed by having good facilities (11%) and friends/family use it and low entry charges (both 6%).

16

USED AND MOST USED POOLS

53% used

45% most used pool

19% used

14% most used pool

18% used

16% most used pool

10% used

7% most used pool

Hurstville Aquatic

Leisure Centre

Angelo AnestisAquatic Centre

Bexley

Sans Souci Leisure Centre

Kogarah War Memorial Pool

9% used

6% most used pool

3% used

2% most used pool

Sutherland Leisure Centre

Roselands Aquatic Centre

68% of Pool Users living in Georges River Council use Council Pools the most.32% of Pool Users living in Georges River Council use Other LGA pools the most.



Table 22: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

Reason for Choosing Pool % of respondents

Close to home 78%

Good facilities 11%

Friends/family use it 6%

Low entry charges 6%

Meet with friends/family 5%

Range of gym equipment available 4%

Learn to swim pools and programs 4%

Friendly and welcoming 4%

It has indoor pools 4%

Travel to Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

The following table provides the most common modes of transport to the centre. Table 23: Visiting the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

Transport Mode % of respondents

Car (on own) 54%

Car (with others) 37%

Walk 7%

Bus 1%

Train 1%

Other 1%

Most people travelled to the HALC by car (91%), either by themselves (54%) or with others (37%).

Frequency of Visitation

Respondents were asked to identify how often they had used the HALC. The was a spread of users with the largest percentage of respondents using the facility on a less than once a month basis (22%) followed by on a weekly basis (20%). Four out of every 10 respondents (41%) used the centre at least once a week or more. Table 24: Frequency of Visitation to Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

Frequency of Use % of respondents

Daily 2%

4-6 times per week 5%


Weekly 20%

Once a fortnight 9%

Once a month 10%

Less than once a month 22%

Summer only 10%

Don’t know 1%

Other 8%

5.2.6 Sans Souci Leisure Centre (SSLC)

Survey respondents who identified that they had visited or used SSLC in the previous 12 months were asked a range of questions relating to their use of the facility.

Rating of Sans Souci Leisure Centre

Survey respondents who had used SSLC were asked to rate the current facilities and services under a 5-point rating system. The results are shown on the following page:






Choosing Sans Souci Leisure Centre

The main reasons for choosing SSLC were identified, with the majority of respondents identifying the proximity to home was the key reason for their choice (61%). This was followed by to use the outdoor pool (11%) and good facilities and learn to swim pools and programs (both 8%). Table 25: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Sans Souci Leisure Centre


Close to home 61%

To use the outdoor pool 11%

Good facilities 8%

Learn to swim pools and programs 8%

To attend learn to swim program 5%

Other 50%

Travel to Sans Souci Leisure Centre

The following table provides the most common modes of transport to the centre. Table 26: Visiting the Sans Souci Leisure Centre


Car (on own) 42%


Walk 13%

Bike 5%

Most people travelled to the SSLC by car (81%), either by themselves (42%) or with others (39%).


Respondents were asked to identify how often they had used the Sans Souci Leisure Centre. The was a spread of users with the largest percentage of respondents using the facility on a weekly basis (29%) followed by once a month (18%). Nearly half of respondents (47%) used the centre at least once a week or more. Table 27: Frequency of Visitation to Sans Souci Leisure Centre


Daily 5%



Weekly 29%

Once a fortnight 0%

Once a month 18%


Summer only 16%

Don’t know 3%

Other 3%



5.2.7 Kogarah War Memorial Pool (KWMP)

Survey respondents who identified that they had visited or used KWMP in the previous 12 months were asked a range of questions relating to their use of the facility.

Rating of Kogarah War Memorial Pool

Survey respondents who had used KWMP were asked to rate the current facilities and services under a 5-point rating system. The results were:




Choosing Kogarah War Memorial Pool

The main reasons for choosing KWMP were identified, with the majority of respondents identifying the proximity to home was the key reason for their choice (68%). This was followed by having friends/family using it (23%) and having good facilities (18%). Table 28: Most Common Reasons for Choosing Kogarah War Memorial Pool


Close to home 68%

Friends/family use it 23%

Good facilities 18%

Friendly and welcoming 14%

To attend leisure water/fun pools 9%

To use the outdoor pool 9%

Meet with friends/family 9%

Other 36%

Travel to Kogarah War Memorial Pool

The following table provides the most common modes of transport to the centre. Table 29: Visiting the Kogarah War Memorial Pool


Car (on own) 23%


Walk 32%

Bus 5%

Other 5%

Most people travelled to the KWMP by car (59%), either by themselves (23%) or with others (36%). Compared to the other 2 pools there was a significant proportion who walked to the pool (32%).


Respondents were asked to identify how often they had used the KWMP. The was a spread of users with the largest percentage of respondents using the facility less than once a month (41%) followed by a monthly basis (18%). Just 3 out of 10 respondents (28%) used the centre once a week or more.



Table 30: Frequency of Visitation to Kogarah War Memorial Pool


Daily 5%



Weekly 0%

Once a fortnight 0%

Once a month 18%


Summer only 14%

5.2.8 Activities Undertaken at Swimming Pools

The main activities undertaken at the swimming pool that the respondent used the most were:

• Recreation swimming/fun - 52%

• Lap swim/fitness - 27%

• Use gym/weights - 18%

• Take child to pool - 12%

• Learn to swim class - 12%

• Use sauna/spa - 5%

• Other recreation/cultural activities - 4%

• Group health and fitness classes i.e. aerobics/pump - 3%

• Meet with friends/family - 3%

• Take part in swim club activity - 3% The most common activities undertaken by respondents that identified their most used pool was the HALC were:

• Recreation Swimming/fun - 51%

• Lap swimming/fitness - 29%



• Take child to pool - 9% The most common activities undertaken by respondents that identified their most used pool was the SSLC were:





• Use gym/weights - 14% The most common activities undertaken by respondents that identified their most used pool was the KWMP were:






• Meet with friends/family - 27%


5.2.9 Future Facility Use

To assist with identifying the level of demand for future use of swimming pools, respondents were asked if they would like to make greater use of these facilities in the future. Table 31: Future Use of Swimming Pools/Leisure Centres

Would like to make greater use Total Male Female 15-34 Years

35-54 Years

55+ Years

Yes 61% 60% 61% 67% 73% 44%

No 40% 40% 39% 33% 27% 56%

Sixty-one per cent (61%) of people indicated that they would like to make greater use of swimming pools/leisure centres in the future. The table above indicates that:

• There was very little difference between females and males when it came to who was more likely to want to increase their use of swimming facilities (61% compared to 60%).

• People in their most active years (15-54 years) are more likely to want to increase the use of swimming pools (67% 15 – 34 years; 73% 35 – 54 years) when compared to those who are in their older years (55+ years of age) who were more likely to not want to make greater use (56%).

18

CURRENT AND FUTURE USE OF POOLS

Current Pool Usage 36%

Future Pool Usage 61%

Significant potential future increased use of pools (+25% or 38,363 more residents) if priority facility improvements completed

Approx.55,242

residents

Approx.93,605

residents

19

CURRENT AND FUTURE USE OF POOLS BY AGE GROUPS

15 – 34 years old

37%

Future 67%

35 – 54 years old

54%

Future 73%

55 years and older

19%

Future 44%

+30%

+25%

+19%



Respondents who indicated that they would like to make greater use of swimming pools were asked to nominate features/facilities that would encourage this increased use. There were 157 different features/facilities nominated with the most common responses having been identified in the table below. Table 32: Future Priority Features for Swimming Pools

Future Priority Features % of respondents

Cleaner more hygienic facilities 23%

Improved children’s pools/water play 18%

Improved gym/weights facilities 15%

Improved warm water/hydrotherapy/program pool 10%

Improved indoor spa and saunas 9%

Longer opening hours 8%

Membership packages/discount offers 8%

Outdoor heated pools 7%

More car parking close to centre 6%

Outdoor grassed/shaded areas 6%

Café and beverage offer 6%

Those respondents who indicated that they would not like to make greater use of swimming pools in the future were asked to identify why this was the case. Table 33: Reasons for Non-Increase of Use of Swimming Pools

Reasons for Non-Increased Use % of respondents

Have and use own pool 27%

Not interested 23%

Go to the beach 20%

Too busy 12%

Too old 10%

Unhygienic/public pools not clean 9%

Don’t like swimming 6%

Can’t swim 5%

Use neighbours/friends pool 4%

Health problems 3%

A total of 70% of respondents indicated that they have and use their own pool (27%), not interested (23%) or go to beach (20%).

5.3 Public Submissions

Interested people were invited to submit electronically or by hard copy public submissions on current and future aquatic leisure facility issues in the GRC area. This invitation was well responded to with 283 submissions received. A copy of all submissions is listed in a separate Volume Two Report - GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research. They are produced word for word from what was submitted unless the submission contained spelling mistakes or comments that were regarded as libelous, making personal insults or could cause future legal issues/actions. In reading the submissions we have not changed any comments that we know to be untrue or fictitious as this is the comment/perception of the author and not for the consultant team to question but rather note. Documenting open ended submissions, especially with many having multiple issues contained in the one submission, has been a difficult and a large time allocation process to document and analyse but it really has provided a good chance for resident comment on current and future needs. They have also raised a lot of issues about facility presentation, car parking, age and maintenance of assets that Council is already discussing with its aquatic facility operators.



We also note that on many previous projects we would normally expect to receive no more than 50 public submissions but in the case of this study we received 283 submissions. Certainly, community participation in this feedback process has been significant and this may have, in part, been directly linked to community concern about the recent closure of the Kogarah War Memorial Pool – Carss Park and the pump failure at Sans Souci Outdoor Pools. As noted in a number of references readers of this report need to also review the Volume Two Report - GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research to see the exact submissions. To help provide an overview of the large number of issues raised by the public we have developed a list of common themes and then linked submission points to these themes. A summary of key submission themes for current facilities and then future facilities are listed as follows and please note as there was no limit on issues raised the percentage (%) responses relate to actual numbers and not a percentage of the respondents. 1. Current Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues The table below highlights the current facility issue themes raised in the submissions. Table 34: Public Submission Current Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues

Themes Count % of respondents

Re-open/redevelop Carss Park 145 51%

Lack of facilities 94 33%

Need for 50m pool 62 22%

Existing facilities are over capacity 46 16%

Need both 50m and 25m pool 27 10%

Not clean 14 5%

Sans Souci pump needs fixing 12 4%

Upgrade Hurstville Aquatic Centre 10 4%

General facility maintenance concerns 8 3%

Outdoor facility preferred 5 2%

Hard to access/not enough parking 4 1%

Opposition to Jubilee option 3 1%

More than 50% of respondents were concerned about the closure/redevelopment of KWMP and its possible reopening. Following this issue there was significant numbers of people raising the need for new facilities with some themes that can be linked as follows:

• A total of 49% of submissions raised lack of facilities (33%) and existing facilities are over capacity (16%).

• A total of 32% of submissions raised need for a 50m pool (22%) and need both a 50m and 25m pool (10%).

• A total of 7% raised facility maintenance and presentation issues 2. Future Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues The table on the next page lists the future facility submission issues.



Table 35: Public Submission Future Aquatic Leisure Facility Issues

Themes Count % of respondents

Re-open/redevelop Carss Park 201 72%

Need for 50m pool 120 43%

Need both 50m and 25m pool 86 31%

Gymnasium 54 19%

Pool programs/classes 45 16%

Café 39 14%

Aqua classes/elderly classes 33 12%

Waterplay/kids pool 29 10%

Training facility of the south 16 6%

Fitness room/classes 10 4%

Water polo 10 4%

Creche 7 3%

Parking 6 2%

Health providers/meeting rooms 4 1%

Waterslides 1 0%

Most submissions highlighted peoples concern with the closure and the need for redevelopment of the KWMP (72%). When other common themes are linked, they also indicated future priorities for:

• A total of 74% of submissions supported a 50m pool (43%) and 50m and 25m pool (31%).

• A total of 28% supported pool programs/classes (16%) and aqua classes/elderly classes (12%).

• A total of 23% supported health and fitness facilities with gymnasium (19%) and fitness room/classes (4%).

• A total of 14% supported a café.

• A total of 13% supported children’s facilities with waterplay/kids pool (10%) and creche (3%).

5.4 Combined Aquatic Leisure Centre User Survey Result Trends

The detailed write up for the three user surveys are listed in the Volume Two Report - GRC Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment and Feasibility Study Market Research. A comparison of key question results is listed as follows in the combined survey table on the following page.



Table 36 Combined Aquatic Leisure Centre User Survey – Key Questions Summary

Question/Issue Top 6 Responses HALC User Survey

473 Surveys

KWMP Former User Survey

209 Surveys

SSLC User Survey

33 Surveys

Main reasons choose facility

Close to home 76.1% 72.2% 46.9%

Has outdoor pool 24.5% 63.2% 0.0%

Open all year round 21.8% 33.5% 35.0%

Friends/family use it 21.4% 25.5% 15.6%

Good facilities 17.8% 23.6% 43.8%

To use outdoor pool and grounds 16.9% 22.6% 50.0%

It has indoor pools 15.5% 0.0% 31.3%

Main Activities do when visit facility

Lap swim/fitness 28.8% 73.2% 68.8%

Recreation swimming/fun 26.0% 38.5% 31.3%

Swim squad/club activity 0.0% 29.6% 25.0%

Cool down from hot weather 0.0% 28.2% 12.5%

Take child to pool 20.4% 27.7% 21.9%

Meet with friends and family 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Learn to swim class 27.3% 27.7% 0.0%

Group health and fitness classes 26.4% 0.0% 18.8%

Use gym weights 25.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Aquarobics 0.05 0.0% 0.0%

Main Areas of Concern/Unhappy with at Facility

Café and food/beverage services 0/0% 16.8% 0.0%

Facility cleaning/presentation 43.9% 15.3% 28.1%

Outdoor pool grounds 0.0% 10.8% 0.0%

Size and quality of changerooms 26.3% 8.9% 18.8%

No warm water program pool 0.0% 8.4% 18.8%

Limited health and fitness facilities 0.0% 7.9% 9.4%

Indoor swimming pools to crowded 36.9% 0.0% 9.4%

Centre to crowded 26.8% 0.0% 9.4%

Not enough car parking onsite 21.2% 0.0% 18.8%

Air quality in pool hall 18.4% 0.0% 15.6%

Use of Other Aquatic Leisure Centres

Sans Souci Leisure Centre 10.1% 44.7% 0.0%

Angelo Anestis Aquatic Centre Bexley

24.5% 43.2% 31.3%

Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre 0.0% 21.8% 43.8%

Sutherland Leisure Centre 17.7% 21.8% 34.4%

Only use KWMP 0.0% 12.6% 0.0%

Roseland Aquatic Centre 13.5% 12.1% 9.4%

Only use HALC 39.7% 0.0%

Future Use of Aquatic Leisure Centres

Yes 88.8% 97.6% 90.9%

No 11.2% 2.4% 9.1%


Better/new children’s pools, facilities for families

15.0% 53.1% 24.1%

Outdoor heated pools 0.0% 51.7% 34.5%

Cleaner more hygienic facilities 71.1% 40.3% 51.7%

Warm, water program pool/older adult facilities

23.2% 36.7% 13.8%

Improved amenities 30.8% 34.8% 37.9%

Improved café and beverage area 0.0% 23.2% 24.1%

Indoor/outdoor waterslides 15.0% 0.0% 13.8%

The three facility user survey results indicate the following key trends across all responses: 1. Main reason to choose the facility

• Close to home

• Open all year round

• Friends and family use it



2. What activities do you do at the facility

• Lap swim/fitness

• Recreation swimming/fun

• Cool down from hot weather

• Take child to pool

• Meet with friends and family

• Learn to swim class 3. Main areas of concern at the facility

• Facility cleaning and presentation across all facilities

• No warm water pool

• Café and food and beverage services

• No enough car parks 4. Use of other facilities

• More than 75% of users made use of more than one other aquatic leisure facility than their main use pool

5. Future use of Aquatic Leisure Centres

• More than 90% of users wanted to make greater use of aquatic leisure centres in the future 6. Future Aquatic Leisure Centre Priorities

• Better/new children’s pools, facilities for families

• Outdoor heated pools

• Cleaner more hygienic facilities

• Warm, water program pool/older adult facilities

• Improved amenities

• Improved café and beverage area

• Indoor/outdoor waterslides



6. What Industry Trends and Challenges Do We Need to Consider

The household telephone survey Use of Aquatic Leisure Centre results indicate residents living in the GRC area currently make low use of facilities compared to other Sydney Metropolitan Council Areas OPG has surveyed over the past few years. The survey findings indicate only 36% of residents had visited/used an aquatic leisure centre in the past 12 months. When extrapolated against the current population this equates to approximately 55,000 GRC residents using aquatic leisure facilities and just under 100,000 residents not making use of facilities. On average we have found in surrounding Sydney LGAs facility aquatic leisure facility usage rates of 50% to 60% of the population so this clearly indicates the need for improved aquatic leisure facilities that offer activity areas for a broad range of residents’ interests and activity needs. The following graphic highlights the key aquatic leisure facility participation results from the household telephone survey.

6.1 Aquatic Facility Trends

OPG and its previous associated companies have completed more than 500 aquatic leisure facility feasibility studies across Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific and over these studies, local and regional research and community engagement indicates the increasing demand for aquatic, health and fitness, wellness and social facilities throughout local communities. Facility trends clearly show we have moved from single purpose, low use seasonal outdoor competition swimming pools built in the 1950s/60s that have been dropping visitation from the high use in the 1970s whilst increasing their operating costs and losses due to the increasing cost of labour, energy and maintenance. There is now a greater emphasis on developing year-round facilities that provide a variety of multiple heated indoor and outdoor water areas to attract a much broader range of users across all ages, interests, abilities and cultural groups. This has seen the development of not only more flexible and multi-use competition and training pools for clubs, squads, schools and lap swimmers but also warm water program pools for older adults for

15

HOUSEHOLD AQUATIC PARTICIPATION SURVEY

64% had not visited or used a pool in past 12 months

36% had visited or used a Pool In past 12 months

40% of females & only 33% of males used poolsL

54% of people aged 35 to 54 years old used pools

Only 19% of people aged 55 years and over used pools

600 randomly selected residents surveyed on current and future use of aquatic and leisure facilities

Georges River Council Residents at 36% make much less use of pools than other Sydney LGA

Areas Surveyed (average 45% to 55% use)

Main Constraints why not using pools:• Go to beach 23%• Not interested 22%• Have own pool 21%• Too busy 16%• Pools not clean 7%• Cannot Swim 5%



rehabilitation and therapy, to purpose built leisure/learn to swim pools, splash pads/water play areas, waterslides and adventure thrill water for youth and spas and saunas for relaxation and wellness. The most successful high attractor and financially sustainable facilities offer facilities for a broad range of user markets that if placed in the best high-profile locations draw users from a large catchment area.

“A Pool needs to be much more than a pool if you want to achieve a high attractor financially sustainable facility” Michael King, 2018 National Sports Conference

The clustering and connecting activity areas and services at the one site creates a high attractor one stop shop to meet a much larger range of people’s needs than the traditional outdoor competition swimming pool. Industry trends indicate successful and sustainable facilities are planned with the primary focus of expanding the facility mix of traditional pools to include a combination of wet and dry activity area options that are programmable, and people want to visit regularly. Having an integrated combination of heated and multiple depth water configuration areas means the facility can attract users from young to old, from children to adults, from specialist needs to people with mobility issues. These include water spaces that accommodate a large mix of activities and interests including:

• Lap swimming

• Learn to swim

• Club and squad training

• Aquatic classes and programs

• Leisure and adventure

• Water play and fun

• Health and therapy

• Gentle exercise

• Adventure and challenge To ensure such facilities are financially sustainable industry trends also indicate such facilities need a mix of community and commercial activity areas that are developed in high visibility and easily accessible locations that have complementary community or commercial spaces, so they become a “one stop activity shop”.



Contemporary successful aquatic leisure facilities need to be planned to be community destinations and social and meeting hubs for a large rage of physical, social, entertainment and wellness activities. Putting all of these spaces under the one roof provides more reasons for people to visit more often, stay longer, travel further and visit with family and friends than the mid-20th century single-purpose outdoor swimming pools still operating around Australia. These trends are proven already in the current facility provision and operating results at GRC’s current aquatic leisure facilities. For example, Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre management attracts over 1.2M visits annually and raises sufficient income to meet all operational costs and also pay for asset renewal and facility depreciation. On the other hand, the Kogarah War Memorial Pool which is open similar hours attracted just over 60,000 annual visits and operated at a loss of more than $450,000 in its last full season of operation. Already having such diverse facility operational results in the Council area should help Council and its residents realise that future aquatic leisure facilities need to be planned with these successful and sustainable trends guiding any development.

6.2 Components that Maximise User Attraction and Markets

The following graphic highlights the main activity markets successful and sustainable aquatic leisure facilities need to be planned for.



6.3 Other Trends and Challenges

Other relevant trends and challenges are listed in the following graphics.



6.4 Review of a Sample of Sydney Outdoor Swimming Pools

OPG contacted a range of Sydney Metropolitan Councils to gather operational trend information on outdoor swimming facilities across the city. The table below provides an overview of the facilities reviewed.

The review of these sample outdoor swimming facilities indicated all facilities were seasonal with annual visitations ranging from a low of 44,215 at the Michael Wenden Aquatic Leisure Centre thorough to 108,897 visits at the Andrew Boy Charlton Pool. All facilities recorded operational losses. When comparing these operating results against the operating performance of Council’s Kogarah War Memorial Pool it can be noted that KWMP attracted approximately 62,000 visits in its last season of operation, which places it in the average to upper visitation levels for outdoor pools (but note it was open all year whilst the reviewed pools were all seasonal). The KWMP also operates at an annual operating loss (range $450,000 to $550,000) which again is consistent with the other facilities reviewed.

6.5 Sydney Metropolitan Area Aquatic Facility Development Projects

Currently there are a large number of aquatic leisure centres undergoing redevelopment, replacement or new development. The graphic on the next page provides a summary of the cost and timing of five of these projects All projects have been in planning for a number of years with most of the projects relying on a range of grants and other levels of funding and planning support from State and Federal Governments.

25

SAMPLE OF SYDNEY METRO OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOLS

LGA Facility Main Components All Year Seasonal Visitations Financial Result

Bayside Botany Aquatic Centre • 50m x 8 lane outdoor pool • 25m LTS/Program outdoor pool• Outdoor toddlers pool• Café

✭ 57,654 Operational Loss

City of Sydney

Andrew Boy Charlton • 8 lane outdoor 50m pool• 20m outdoor program pool• Function room • Café


Blacktown Mount Druitt Aquatic Centre • Outdoor 8 lane, 50m pool• Toddler pool• Cafe


Riverstone Aquatic Centre • Outdoor 8 lane, 50m pool• Toddler pool• Cafe


Liverpool Michael Wenden ALC • Outdoor 8 lane, 50m pool• Outdoor kids pool/splash pad• Indoor warm water pool• 2 indoor sport courts• Gym/fitness programs• Cafe




6.6 Major Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Trends

OPG has completed a review of major aquatic leisure facility development funding trends. A summary of reviewed projects is listed in the table on the following page.

27

SYDNEY METRO AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

$44.7MOpen August

2020

$77MOpen Mid 2023

$84MOpen Stage 1

2020

$56MOpen Feb 2022

Ashfield Aquatic Centre

Redevelopment

Parramatta Swimming Pool Replacement

Gunyama Park Aquatic Centre City of Sydney

Waves Fitness & Aquatic Centre Replacement

$62MUnder Design

North Sydney Olympic Pool

Redevelopment

All facilities have a mix of aquatic areas, health, fitness, wellness and social areas



Table 37: Major Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Review

State Year Local Government

Area

Facility Project Value Local Government

Funding

Federal Government

Funding

State Government

Funding

Victoria 2009 City of Casey Casey RACE $45.0M $35.0M $5.0M $5.0M

2012 Banyule City Council

WaterMarc $46.0M $43.5M $10.0M $2.5M

2012 Glen Eira City Council

Glen Eira Sports and Aquatic Centre (GESAC)

$45.2M $35.2M $5.0M $5.0M

2013 Frankston City Council

Peninsula Aquatic Recreation Centre (PARC)

$49.6M $26.1M $13.5M $13.0M

2014 Maroondah Shire Council

AquaNation $46.0M $33.5M $10.0M $2.5M

2015 Nillumbik Shire Council

Eltham Leisure Centre Redevelopment

$19.5 M $12.7M $0M $6.8M

2015 Wyndham City Council

AquaPulse $50.0M $47.5M $0M $2.5M

2016 East Gippsland Shire Council

Bairnsdale Aquatic & Recreation Centre Redevelopment

$6.5M $3.5M $0M $3.0M

2017 Hume City Council

Splash Aqua Park & Leisure Centre

$45.0M $32.8M $9.2M $3.0M

2017# Wangaratta Rural City Council

Wangaratta Aquatic Centre Redevelopment

$12.5M $0.6M $4.4M $7.5M ($6M interest

free loan)

2018 City of Greater Bendigo

Gurri Wanyarra Wellbeing Centre

$35.0M $14.155M $4.885M $15.0M

2018# Mornington Shire Council

Rosebud Aquatic Leisure Centre

$49.0M $39.0M $5.0M $5.0M (interest free

loan)

2018# Latrobe Council Gippsland Regional Aquatic Centre

$54.0M $0M $0M $54M ($46M grant and $8M interest free

loan)

2019# Surf Coast Shire Council

Torquay Indoor Aquatic Centre

$35.0M $10.0M $15.0M $10.0M

Queensland 2015 Gympie Regional Council

Gympie Aquatic Centre

$22.5M $17.4M $5.0M $100,000

2015 Rockhampton Regional Council

2nd War Memorial Pool

$17.8M $5.8M $5.0M $7M

2017 Mackay Regional Council

Mackay Aquatic Centre

$23.9M $13.0M $10.0M $0

New South Wales

2015 Lithgow Council Lithgow Aquatic Centre Development

$7.0M $1.0M $0M $6M ($3M grant &

$3M low interest loan)

2018 Griffith City Council

Regional Aquatic Centre

$35M $25M $0M $10M

2018# Eurobodalla Shire Council

Batemans Bay Arts & Aquatic Centre

$67.0M $15.0M $25.0M $26M

2019# North Sydney Council

North Sydney Olympic Pool Redevelopment

$62.0M $52.0M $10.0M Seeking $10M

2018 Parramatta City Council

Parramatta Swimming Pool Relocation

$77.0M $38.5M $0M $38.5M

Tasmania 2016 Burnie City Council

Burnie Aquatic Centre Redevelopment

$8.8M $2.8M $3.0M $3.0M

South Australia

2019 Barossa Valley Council

Construction of Hydrotherapy Pool

$1.1M $700,000 $400,000 $0M

The funding review highlights there are significant joint funding precedents for major aquatic leisure centre funding across Australia and Council should consider developing a project funding strategy to attract funds to the project once it determines the scope and size of the development.



7. Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Development

7.1 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Demand Findings

The following summary of key study findings has been developed to help guide the facility development process of this report.

7.2 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Planning Guide

The project brief requires the consultant team to compete this study based on development of a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre. Council has adopted the Georges River Council Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy 2019 to 2036 has now a planning guide that includes:

Source: Georges River Open Space, Recreation and Community Facilities Strategy 2019 to 2036

35

FUTURE REGIONAL AQUATIC CENTRE DEMAND FINDINGS

• GRC already has the States best attended and financially performing centre at Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre

• Current low pool use/participation (36%) indicates significant opportunity to develop a second Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre but it needs to cater for a broad range of users and interests.

• Future priority components to attract high use and ensure sustainable operations include:

– Indoor 50m x 10 lane pool with dividable/moveable boom

– Indoor leisure/Learn to Swim Pool

– Water play/splash pad and waterslides

– Indoor warm water program pool/spas/saunas

– Health, fitness and wellness facilities

– Café, retail and car parking for up to 300 cars

• To be sustainable new facility should to be located on a high visibility/profile site with high levels of passing traffic and complimentary activity areas with adequate parking.

• Facility should aim to attract (after establishment) 700,000 to 800,000 annual visits

Guiding Principles for

Future Facilities and Spaces

Flexible &Multi-purpose

Equitably Distributed

across/within Catchment

Areas

Activated, Safe and

Proactively Managed

Clustered with Complimentary Uses

Part of a Connected

Facility Network

High Quality and

Sustainable

Inclusive and Reflective of the Whole Community



The Communities Facility Strategy also has developed a facility hierarchy for the future planning and delivery of future facilities and spaces. The future facilities hierarchy adopted by Council utilises the following facility definitions.


The following table outlines what this future facility hierarchy means for future aquatic facilities


7.3 Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Components

To assist with capital cost estimates, development footplate requirements and site assessment, OPG has reviewed the key research and industry trend findings from this study and have developed a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Component Brief. The details of what is proposed is listed in the table on the following pages. Please note that the proposed components are notional only and will require a detailed feasibility, operational and capital cost benefit analysis study to determine final components and indicative capital costs.



The feasibility study will also determine if some of the aquatic components are developed as indoor or outdoor pools. Table 38: Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Components Summary

Area m2

Aquatics 5,800

Health, Fitness and Wellness 1,782

Dry Facilities 195

Front of House 645

Amenities 592

Plant and Services 550

Total Development Area 9,564

7.4 Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Car Parking

Final town planning regulations will determine the final requirements for car parking for the development. Notionally we have planned for an allocation of 300 car parks to be developed as part of this study so we can include this area in the site assessment analysis. Car parking may be at grade or may also be developed as a multi-deck building. Based on similar car parks the project has been assessed as notionally requiring a land area of 11,500m2 for the at grade car park option.

37

REGIONAL AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE PRIORITY COMPONENTS

50 metre pool with boom

Leisure/LTS Pool

Warm Water Program Pool

Waterslides

Gym/Weights

Splash Pads

Group Fitness

Spinning

Merchandise

Wellness

Cafe



Table 39: Georges River Council Regional Aquatic Centre Notional Facility Components, Area Schedules and Options

ACTIVITY AREA FACILITY COMPONENTS TARGET MARKETS FACILITY OBJECTIVES FUNCTIONAL

RELATIONSHIPS OTHER FEATURES TO

CONSIDER AREA SCHEDULES

BASE FACILITY AREA (m2)

Aquatic Facilities Main Competition Pool with 51.5m x 10 lanes (2.5m/lane) with moveable boom and access ramp

• Education • Competition • Health and fitness • Events • Training • Programs

• Provide indoor activity areas for residents, schools and leisure users

• Provide club and fitness activity area.

• Provide Events Pool

• Adjacent to spectator areas

• Deep pool areas located away from shallow water pools

• 25m pool needs to be isolated from other pools during competition use (noise factor)

• Disabled access/ramp/ hoist/other

• Note feasibility and cost benefit analysis review to determine if built as an indoor or outdoor pool

• Pool – 51.5m x 25m • Ramp 1.5m wide

downside line • Wet Deck – 0.5m around

pool edge • Concourse – 3.0m sides,

4.0m ends • Water depth 1.4m to

2.1m

2,070m2 (60m x 34.5m)

Spectator Area for 51.5m pool

• Education • Competition • Events • Casual spectator

• Provide seating provision (500) with option to add temporary seating to adjoining concourse for special events (250)

• Adjacent to side of 51.5m pool and possible built above plant room/storage areas etc

• Ensure no pool hall columns in vision lines

• Consider temporary spectator area clear of columns

• Consider placing above School/Event Change

• Add temporary seats (250) to provide total capacity of 750 adults for special events

• Consider range of options for providing spectator seating

• Seating area down sideline of pool plus walkways etc

600m2

Leisure Water/Learn to Swim Program Pool (catering for interactive Leisure and learn to swim areas)

• Leisure activities • Social groups • Entertainment • Education/LTS • Programs • Infants • Families

• Provides a combined leisure/LTS pool to attract families and young children

• Provide broad leisure and education experiences

• Provide program area for exercise/swim lessons

• Provide safe toddler water area with clear vision barrier to deeper water areas

• Adjacent to 51.5m pool • Close to change rooms • Close to wet lounge and

café • Locate to ensure vision

from foyer/reception • Locate to provide vision

to main centre entry

• Water sprays and leisure water features added.

• Wet lounge/cafe area adjoining

• Ensure that the activities within the water areas do not conflict i.e. LTS area located away from toddler’s pool/leisure water

• Access via beach entry

• LTS pool 20m x 10m (600mm to 900mm deep) = 200m2

• Beach entry/free form water 100m2 Interactive leisure/play pool 200m2

• Toddlers Pool 60m2 • Concourse average 3m

around pool area

800m2

(Approx.)

Warm Water Program Pool with Adjoining Spas

• Programs • Therapy • Education • Wellness • Relaxation

• Cater for large range of older adults, therapy classes and casual users

• Adjacent to separate change areas

• Separated by glass walls with door access from other pools

• Accessible spa at end of ramp and separate concourse access spa

• Requires access ramp for entry to pool and spa

• Pool/spas - 25m x 12m • Ramp 1.5m wide down

sideline • Wet Deck – 0.5m² around

pool edge • Concourse 3m down one

side and 3m down other (ramp side) 3m ends

• Depth 900mm to 1.4m

620m² (31m² x 20m²)







Water Play Unit and Splash Pad

• Children • Youth • Families

• Provide a play space with water and sprays

• Adjacent to the leisure/LTS pool

• Nil depth access to splash pad

• Consider options for access to water play unit

• 23m x 23m splash pad area based on AP850 Unit

530m2

Dry and Steam Saunas • Older adults • Social • Therapy • Sports recovery • Non-organised

leisure

• Provide hot water pool, steam room and dry sauna for social/ relaxation and therapy

• Capacity for approx. 16 people

• Close to change facilities • Zone away from

children’s areas (planter areas)

• Spa saunas close to program pool

• Landscape area • Concourse shower close

by

• Sauna – 20m² dry • Sauna – 20m2 steam • Concourse shower 5m2

45m2

Covered in Water Slides and Tower

• Children • Youth • Families

• Provide an adventure water area

• Need to be located adjacent to the main pool hall with closed in tower and fully enclosed slides that are outside but crash down zone is inside the pool hall

• Consider future slide installation to increase number of slides

• 2 slides 120m to 130m long off 12m tower.

• Crash down area on concourse via flumes with step out.

• Provide crash down area 10m x 10m and tower footplate 10m x 10m

200m2

Other support facilities - Storage - First aid room - Pool office - Wet lounge - Party Room - Plant rooms

• Service areas • Service areas • Storage adjacent to program pool

• First aid providing direct concourse access and external ambulance access

• Pool office close to program pool

• Wet lounge adjoins café and leisure pool

• Link circulation and wet lounge areas

• Consider issues of access to outdoor pools

• Provision of security lockers on the concourse

• Storage – 80m² • First aid – 15m² • Pool office – 20m² • Wet lounge and Party

room – 200m² • Circulation allow 10%

(270m2) • Plant – 350m2

935m2

Subtotal Aquatics 5,800m2

Health Fitness & Wellness

Weights Room (requires 24-hour access design

• Health and fitness • Therapy • Competition/clubs • Industry training

• Provide general fitness area incorporating weights, cardio equipment and circuit area

• Major revenue area

• Located close to reception

• Located close to dry change

• Close to multipurpose room

• Shared storage • Requires 24-hour access

design for gym and change areas

• Ensure provision for future extension opportunities

• Gym – 750m2 • Office – 20m2 • Fitness test X 2 – 40m2 • 24-hour access corridor -

30m2 • Store – 30m2

870m2

Multipurpose Rooms / Function Rooms

• Health and fitness • Therapy • Competition /

clubs • Industry training • Social group • Events/social

• Provide multi-use timber floor area suitable for classes and functions.

• Major revenue area.

• Locate close to reception • Locate close to dry

change • Adjacent to weights

room • Shared storage • Close to meeting/club

room

• Kitchenette with servery to multipurpose and meeting/training room

• Provision of acoustic treatment to limit sound breakout.

• Group fitness room 1 300m2

• Group fitness room 2 (dividable) 200m2

• Stores – 40m2

540m2







Wellness Centre including Wellness Group Program Room

• Wellness and Health classes.

• Wellness Treatments

• Personal training • Specialist services • Relaxation • Centre staff • Training programs • Sporting Clubs

• Provide a relaxing and quiet wellness and health zone

• Provide multi-use area suitable for meetings and training programs

• Provides community club area

• Close to change rooms • Close to front of centre • Access off foyer if

possible • Link rear access to warm

water program pool/spas • Adjacent to kitchenette

• Ensure provision for future extension opportunities

• Storage for equipment

• Wellness/group fitness room (Pilates/yoga) – 200m²

• Consultation rooms x 8 rooms with showers and sinks (2 x 4m² x 5m² and 6 x 4m² x 3m²– 112m²

• Foyer/waiting 30m² • Storage/Prep – 30m²

372m²

Subtotal Health Fitness and Wellness 1,782m2

Dry Facilities Optional Childcare facility/Multi-Purpose Program Rooms

• Families • Children • Non-organised

leisure • Social groups

• Provide childcare and multi-use room for programs

• Provide for up to 30 child placements

• Supports parents use of centre

• Close to front of centre • Close to reception

• Outdoor play area • Indoor play centre and

equipment

• Floor area – 130m2 • Toilets – 30m2 • Store – 20m2 • Office – 15m2

195m²

Subtotal Dry Facilities 195 m2

Front of House Areas

Foyer / Reception / Merchandising

• All customers • Provide welcoming entry area that allows users to relax and socialise before entering central areas

• Social areas for casual stay/secondary spending

• Links to dry lounge and café

• Links to consulting rooms • Links to meeting/

training/clubroom • Airlock between public

front of house and pool hall.

• Possible future extensions to centre may need link through foyer/reception area

• Foyer and Merchandise area– 130m²

• Reception – 40m² • Store – 30m²

200m2

Offices/Administration/ Staff Rooms

• Centre staff • Provide areas for staff and centre administration

• Close to reception • Vision into activity

circulation spaces.

• Possible extension of areas if further centre activity areas added

• Offices x 4 – 60m² • Work area – 50m² • Storage – 40m² • Staff room – 50m² • Staff amenities – 25m²

225m2

Café/Dry Lounge • All customers and staff

• Provide high quality food area that attracts high secondary spend

• Key socialisation

• Links to foyer and dry lounge (servery)

• Links to wet lounge and pool hall (servery)

• Linkage to other activity areas for sales

• Dry lounge – 100m² • Café serveries – 40m² • Kitchen – 40m² • Store – 30m² • Other –10m²

220m2

Meeting/Training Room • Centre management and staff

• Swimming & Triathlon Clubs

• Training orgs

• Provide a flexible multi-use space that can be used for meetings and functions

• Need to be located close to centre entry

• Trophy cabinet for swimming & triathlon club’s memorabilia

• Lock up cupboard kitchenette

• Meeting area 10m x 8m 80m2

Subtotal Front of House 645m2







Amenities / Change

Main Pool Hall/Change Rooms and Amenities

• Aquatics hall users

• Provide modern amenities easily maintained

• Adjoining pool concourse and close to reception

• Lockable links to dry facilities to open up all amenities for major events

• Male – 100m² • Female – 100m² • Service areas – 10m²

210m2

School/Event Change Rooms

• Schools • Event Users • Swim Club

• Provide separate change areas for groups i.e. 1 x male and 1 x female

• Close to group entry doors

• Possibly located below Spectator area

• Minimal Shower/Toilet provision

• Male Group change – 50m²

• Female Group change – 50m²

100m²

Warm Program Pool Change

• Program Pool users

• Provide separate change for Program Pool users.

• Close to Program Pool • Within enclose Program

Pool zone

• Ensure fully accessible • Male Program Pool change – 40m²

• Female Program Pool change – 40m²

80m²

Dry Change Rooms and amenities

• Health and fitness users

• Meeting room users

• Café users

• Provide modern amenities easily maintained

• Adjoining weights and aerobics room

• Use as group change in high user periods

• Male – 60m² • Female – 60m² • Service areas – 10m²

130m2

Family Change • Families • People with

disabilities • Older adults • Special needs

groups

• Provide range of family/disabled cubicles

• Next to wet and dry amenities

• Set of 2 near Leisure Pool

• Set of 2 near Program Pool

• Open all times pool is open

• 6 cubicles @ 12m² 72m2

Subtotal Amenities / Lounge 592m2

Other Areas Dry Plant Room - - - - ▪ Allowance 200m2

Communication Room ▪ Allowance 20 m2

Cleaners Room / Store - - - - ▪ Allowance 30m2

General Circulation Allowance (10%) – all dry areas

- - - - ▪ Allowance 300m2

Subtotal Other Areas 550m2

Total Dry Areas (Health and Fitness and Front of House, Amenities and Other Areas) 3,764m2

Total Aquatic Areas (Indoor Pools and Support Areas). 5,800m2

ESTIMATED TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA 9,564m2

Note – Feasibility and cost benefit analysis review required to determine mix of facilities and indoor and outdoor components



7.5 Indicative Capital Cost Estimates

To be able to develop an estimated cost of the proposed Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre it is essential that a proposed site is chosen, and schematic layout concepts be developed so they can be functionally laid out, measured and costed by the different areas. As a starting point of the likely cost we have reviewed a range of under design/construction similar size aquatic leisure projects in NSW and meeting with quantity surveyors who are costing similar projects we believe that Council as a starting point can use an all-inclusive construction/fees/contingency rate of between $5,500/m2 and $6,000/m2. Based on a 9,500m2 facility footplate development the likely capital cost would be in the order of $52.6M to $57.4M. Added to this cost would be car parking and access roads, services upgrades and landscaping.

7.6 Review of Sydney Metro Regional Aquatic Leisure Centres

A review of other similar sized Aquatic Leisure Centres in metropolitan Sydney (as proposed in Section 7.3) was completed as part of the studies market research review. Added to these facilities reviewed was Council’s Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (see Section 3.1 of this report for operational overview) which at 1.221M visits recorded the highest use for such centres in NSW whilst also meeting all operating and asset maintenance costs. A summary of the other regional aquatic leisure facilities reviewed and their results for 2018/19 are listed in the following table.

Note: limited financial operating information available as commercial in confidence data

The Sydney Metropolitan Regional Aquatic Centre review found from a business feasibility perspective (when also adding in HALC to this review):

• Annual visitations for three out of the four centres were similar ranging from 740,000 to 770,000 visits. HALC visits were well above these at 1.221M.

23

LGA Facility Main Components All Year Seasonal Visitations Financial Result

Blacktown Blacktown Leisure Centre (Parklea)

• Indoor 25m pool• Wave pool• Spa and Sauna • Gym, fitness classes • 3 multicourt stadium• Café/creche• Community function rooms • Branch library

✭ 740,000 to 745,000

Operating profit

Inner West Leichhardt Park Aquatic Centre • Outdoor 7 lane, 50m pool• Diving / water polo pool • Gym/fitness classes• Indoor program pool• Toddler pools (indoor/outdoor)• Hydrotherapy pool

✭ 765,000 to 770,000

Operating profit

City of Sydney

Ian Thorpe AC Ultimo • 8 lane indoor 50m pool• Indoor program pool• Indoor leisure pool• Spa and Sauna • Gym, fitness classes • Café/creche

✭ 750,000 to 755,000

Operational Loss

Liverpool; Whitlam Leisure Centre • Outdoor 10 lane, 50m pool• Indoor 8 lane 50m pool • 3 multi court stadium• Gym/fitness classes• Indoor leisure/program pool• Toddler pools (indoor/outdoor)• Café/creche

✭ 500,000 to 550,000

Operational Loss



• Two centres had operating profit results and two centres recorded operating losses. HALC not only recorded operating profits but also was able to meet the cost of asset maintenance and depreciation from income generated.

These facility review results indicate that for Council in the future to develop a sustainable regional aquatic leisure centre it is going to need to develop facilities to attract more than 800,000 annual visits as well as be operated efficiently to minimise operating costs.



8. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review

OPG and its associated companies, has been involved in more than 500 aquatic leisure centre feasibility studies and over this period has developed a rage of site assessment criteria that have been used to successfully locate sustainable aquatic leisure facilities. A key requirement of the project brief was to complete detailed site assessment. This section of the report reviews potential future sites in the GRC area against these site selection criteria to help guide Council on what site/sites would best meet the proposed development.

8.1 Successful and Sustainable Site Assessment Criteria

The 16 successful and sustainable site assessment criteria used for this studies site selection are listed as follows. Criteria 1: Size of Site to Meet Development Requirements: It has been assumed at this early stage of

planning that the Georges River Council Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre would be of similar size to centres built for populations of 100,000 plus people. The facility component brief developed for this facility is listed in Section 7.2 and sees the size requirements for the centre of approximately 9,500 m2 to 10,000m2 footplate that could be multistorey but require at least a 6,500m2 single level footplate. It will also require adjoining land for adequate parking (or a basement car park development opportunity) plus buffer landscape and future expansion area. Based on assumed building areas and car parking the total development area required would be in the order of:

Table 40: Notional Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Area Requirements

Component Area

Building Area 9,500 m² to 10,000 m²

Outdoor Area and Future Expansion 2,000 m² to 3,000 m²

Car Park Area/Buffer Zone 300 car parks 11,500 m² to 12,000 m²

Total Approximate Development Area 23,000m² (2.3 hectares) to 25,000 m² (2.50 hectares) Note: These allowances may be modified for sites that allow the development to be built as an extension to an existing building or already have suitable car parking provision.

Criteria 2: Public Transport and Road Access: Site being accessible by the public transport services and

has main road access recognising major daily traffic patterns. Criteria 3: High Visibility and Passing Traffic Site: Having a highly visible location to ensure the centre is

well recognised, promoted and easily available to all. Industry trends clearly indicate Aquatic Leisure facilities that are built on highly visible sites receive higher usage due to their easy access and constant reminder of the facility.

This is very important for facilities requiring high numbers of daily visitors for sustainability. This is important not just for the financial viability of the centre, but also for the positive health and social outcomes that regular participation in physical activity will bring.

Criteria 4: Suitable land: Development should only occur on suitable land sites. Sites not suitable due to

previous uses such as land fill, have high water tables, alluvial soils, soil contamination, are undulated and require significant earth works and have no or limited services close by etc are rated as unsuitable.

Criteria 5: Planning/Zoning: Capability of site to meet all current and proposed planning requirements for

a facility, which can expect (800,000 to 1,000,000 visits per year).



Criteria 6: Site Services: Adequate services to be on site or close by to minimise cost and to ensure facility can be serviced to the following approximate level.

a) Electrical: 1100KVA b) Water: Sufficient for firefighting purposes c) Gas: 1500-2000KW (for pool and general air handling) d) Sewer: For filter, backwash, concourse wash down etc.

e) Storm water: To meet building, car park and land water run-off. Criteria 7: Site Access and Traffic Impacts: Most site visitors (80% to 90%) will come by car so there needs

to be adequate site access and provision of appropriate car parking, bus parking and group drop off and pick up. Centre sustainability will require more than 2,000 visits (transactions) a day to the site so this would see between 1,200 and 1,500 car movements to and from the site which will generate constant traffic between main operational hours of 6.00am to 9.00pm weekdays and 7.00am to 7.00pm on weekends.

Criteria 8: Site Development Costs: Cost to either purchase or create the development on the site

compared to other sites to determine the likely development cost impacts at each site. Criteria 9: Location to Catchment Population: Location and how close it caters for current and projected

project area population (Primary/Secondary catchment zones). Population catchment research shows following current and future primary catchment populations.

Site 2016 ABS Primary User catchment

Population

2036 Projected Primary User

Catchment Population

Future Population Increase 2016 to

2036

1. Kogarah Stadium 224,051 264,141 +40,090

2. Todd Park 228,369 268,122 +39,753

3. Kogarah War Memorial Pool 212,729 259 182 +46,453

4. Sans Souci Leisure Centre 159,961 216,684 +56,723

Criteria 10: Neighbourhood Effects: Rating of any negative neighbourhood impacts likely to occur from the

development in relation to the surrounding neighbourhood, road network etc. from the development, operational noise, traffic control, lighting etc.

Criteria 11: Compatible/Development/Use of Site: Does use suit site/are there development links to

existing or other site users/uses including the clustering of community facilities. Criteria 12: Image of Site: Does site image complement the proposed development? (i.e. visual aesthetics). Criteria 13: Shared Development Opportunities: Are there any shared development or management

opportunities? i.e. commercial/community partnerships. Criteria 14: Development/Design Impacts: Are there issues that will impact on the design, functionality or

facility operations for developing at this site. Criteria 15: Future Expansion Land Availability: Is there adequate adjoining land for potential future

facility expansion? Criteria 16: Impacts to Existing users: compatibility with existing users or need to relocate.



8.2 Sites that Were Assessed

The potential largest current and future user catchment area for the proposed Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre was identified from current and 2036 population projections were in planning catchment 5 and 6 areas of the city (see Section 4). Site inspections were carried out on a range of potential sites and following a research review on site information the following four sites were identified for detailed site assessment:

• Site 1: Jubilee Stadium 249 Princes Highway Kogarah

• Site 2: Todd Park – 342 Princes Highway Blakehurst

• Site 3: Kogarah War Memorial Pool Carss Park – 78 Carwar Avenue Carss Park

• Site 4: Sans Souci Leisure Centre – 521 Rocky Point Road Sans Souci Each of the review sites were electronically mapped using NearMaps to identify potential land area plus any adjoining land that may be needed as part of the development. The aerial maps and site location graphic are listed below, and an overview of each site is presented on the following pages.

39

REGIONAL AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRE SITES REVIEWED

1.Kogarah Stadium 2. Todd Park

3. Carss Park4. Sans Souci LC



8.2.1 Site 1 - Kogarah Stadium, Kogarah

The Jubilee Park Stadium Precinct Masterplan February 2019 presented future development concept plans that indicate the opportunity to develop an indoor aquatic and leisure centre over the top of 2 level basement car parking catering for up to 700 car parks. The current stadium layout and surrounding land area is detailed in the following aerial photo.

Figure 12: Kogarah Stadium, Kogarah The Precinct Planning Study identified an option for development of a 5,000-seat grandstand that would allow for a new under croft area. This area could incorporate a 50m and 25m program pools, spas and saunas, warm water pool, health and fitness centre and wellness facilities. The aquatic leisure centre could be developed in a 9,500m2 footplate that allows for an 8 to 9 metre roof area so parts could be multi-story. The aquatic centre development could sit over two levels of car parking that allow for up to 715 car parks. The concept details are listed in the following precinct option plans.



Figure 13: Notional Aquatic Leisure Centre Area Layout



Figure 14: Stadium Grandstand showing aquatic leisure centre and 2 car park levels

Figure 15: Carpark Level 1 - 292 cars

Figure 16: Carpark Level 2 – 423 cars



The two-level car park would see a car park capacity of up to 715 cars. This site has been considered for assessment as it is located in the largest future user catchment zone and has a range of complimentary activity areas and shared infrastructure. This site would only be a future candidate site if Council funds the total stadium redevelopment opening up the opportunity for the aquatic leisure centre components.

8.2.2 Site 2 - Todd Park, Blakehurst

Aerial mapping reviews indicate Todd Park has a total land area of approximately 4.015 hectares. It currently contains an open space playing field and support facilities being amenities, car parking and access roads. The aerial photo on the next page highlights the open space area available for development consideration and the adjoining area that has 75 to 80 car parks.

Figure 17: Todd Park, Blakehurst Todd Park is located off the Princes Highway at Blakehurst and currently provides playing fields and amenities for cricket in the summer and rugby league in the winter. Based on an ALC development area requirement of 2.5ha this would see 1.515 hectares left for playing fields and future development.

40

SITE 2 AREA REVIEW

Todd Park & Car Park4.015 Hectares



Figure 18: Todd Park - View from access road and pavilion

8.2.3 Site 3 – Kogarah War Memorial Pool, Carss Park

The Kogarah War Memorial Pool is located off Carwar Avenue in Carss Park. The site aerial photo shows the pool facilities and adjoining car park (shared with sports field users) has a total land area of 1.236 hectares. Development of an aquatic leisure centre at this site that only used the current land footplate would require a multideck car park development and a multi-storey aquatic leisure centre building

Figure 19: Kogarah War Memorial Pool, Carss Park If adjoining sports field land was linked to the KWMP site based on a total project land area requirement of 2.5 hectares it would impact some sports fields as shown on the aerial photo on the following page.

43

SITE 4 AREA REVIEW

KWMP & Car Park 1.236 hectares



Figure 20: Aerial View of Kogorah War Memorial Pool

8.2.4 Site 4 - Sans Souci Leisure Centre

Sans Souci Leisure Centre is located off 521 Rocky Point Road, Sans Souci. It has a total fenced land area including adjoining car park of approximately 1.236 hectares. If the adjoining eastern parkland and car park is added to the leisure centre site this provides a potential development area of 3.180 hectares as detailed in the following aerial photo.

Figure 21: Aerial View of Sans Souci Leisure Centre

42

SITE 3 AREA REVIEW

SSLC site 0.724 ha & Adjoining Park 2.456 ha = Total land area 3.180 Hectares



The site is a long narrow site with restricted expansion to widen the site with Rocky Point Road to the north and the Georges River to the south. The site is also undulating with a sharp rise in site levels to the east of the leisure centre. The logical development area for a future aquatic centre would be to demolish the existing indoor pool hall and develop over this facility as well as taking up more land to the east of the pool hall as noted in the aerial photo below.

Figure 22: Sans Souci Leisure Centre

8.3 Site Assessment Criteria Review

OPG used the 16 successful site assessment criteria in the final draft report to review each site based on the following scoring system to provide an assessment score for each of the criteria:

• 9 to 10 meets Criteria to high level

• 7 to 8 meets criteria to reasonable level

• 5 to 6 meets criteria

• 3 to 4 does not fully meet criteria

• 1 to 2 does not Meet Criteria Additional site service reviews were able to be completed by Council Officers between February 2020 and May 2020. The following table highlights the site services requirements for a proposed RALC and how the two highest scored sites may be impacted which has also guided site criteria score reassessment.

Future development area to east of indoor pool hall



Table 41: Estimated Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Services Requirements

Review Category Kogarah War Memorial Pool Todd Park

Site Services – Water (Fire services will require 30 to 40 litres/sec)

• Domestic water supply serviced by 100mm main to site boundary then joining to 80mm pipe which will be inadequate for fire services & RALC needs.

• New water service from Princes Highway along Carwar Avenue needed (est. $1.3M+) plus est. $600,000 for asset reinstatement and further costs to connect to water main on eastern side of Princes Hwy.

• Water supply adjacent 200mm service.

• Adequate supply appears for fire services & RALC needs but final design will determine If need to be boosted by pumps.

Site Services – Power (Require up to 1100KVA)

• Limited power supply (643 AMPs) so new substation required.

• Limited power supply (788AMPs) so new substation required.

Site Services - Gas (Require 27,000 to 30,000 MJ/hr.)

• Domestic gas service heated showers/pool water (75mm).

• Major services upgrade to heat new water areas and air handling services.

• Domestic service only past site (110mm)

• Major services upgrade to heat new water areas and air handling services.

Soil Contamination Issues

• Significant soil contamination on site will require removal at high cost.

• Adjoining properties soil testing indicates no significant contamination issues.

Water Table • Significant water table issues will see added costs for foundations and if development requires inground parking.

• Adjoining properties major development soil testing indicates no significant water table issues.

Traffic Management

• Approx. 2,400 to 2,500 average daily traffic movements on Carwar Ave (near child-care).

• RALC likely to double traffic movements down Carwar Avenue which may trigger new traffic management improvements at intersection of Carwar Ave & Princes Hwy.

• Approx. 52,000 daily traffic movements on Princes Hwy so traffic management plan needed.

• RALC will require new access & exits.

• Current Princes Hwy easement adjacent to Todd Park will allow for direct site entry or exit.

The final draft report site criteria assessment scores were reassessed following completion of the further service site reviews as well as following review of site assessment relevant issues lodged from public submissions and information session participant feedback. The final report site assessment scores and summary issues are listed on the following pages.



Table 42: Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review

Site Assessment

Criteria

Site 1 Kogarah Stadium

Kogarah Stadium Assessment Score

Comment

Site 2 Todd Park

Todd Park Assessment Score Comment

Site 3 Kogarah

War Memorial

Pool

KWMP Assessment Score Comment

Site 4 Sans Souci

Leisure Centre

SSLC Assessment Score Comment

1. Size of site 2 • Meets minimum area requirements based on precinct development plans.

• No area for future development.

• These factors scores site low rating.

8 • Largest development area at 4.15ha.

• Large area for future development.

• Long frontage site provides for functional high-profile design.

• These factors score site high rating.

5 • Does not meet minimum area requirements as land area only 1.23ha.

• Requires use of adjoining parkland to create 2.5ha land area.

• Limited area for future development unless more playing fields lost.

• Factors scores site medium rating.

2 • Does not meet minimum area requirements as land area only 0.724ha.

• Requires use of adjoining sports fields to create 2.5ha area.

• Limited area for future development.

• These factors scores site low rating.

2.Public transport and access

7 • T4 train and 2 bus routes 430 and 958.

• Excellent access scores site high.

6 • T4 train and connect with 3 bus routes.

• Reasonable access scores above medium.

5 • T4 train and 2 bus routes.

• Some bus access scores medium rating.

3 • T4 train and 3 bus routes 476, 478 and 947 but then 7-minute walk.

• Poor access scores low.

3. High visibility/passing traffic

7 • Located off Princes Highway Kogarah and estimated 48,000 vehicles pass site on average weekdays.

8 • Located off Princes Highway Blakehurst and estimated 52,000 vehicles pass site on average weekdays.

5 • Located off Carwar Avenue so low passing by traffic and visibility.

• Poor visibility & passing traffic sees medium rating.

7 • Located off Kogarah and estimated 56,000 vehicles pass site daily.

4.Suitable land and conditions

4 • Major event facility construction on site and no known soil, contamination and foundation issues.

8 • Relatively clear site and level site with no known soil, contamination and foundation issues.

4 • Poor soil with contamination, high water table and site adjoining river so low rating.

4 • Poor soil, some contamination, high water table and site adjoining river so low rating given.

5.Planning and zoning

4 • Major event facility site.

• Future Regional ALC permitted use subject to meeting parking requirements.

7 • Current sport and recreation facility and event use.

• Future Regional ALC permitted use subject to meeting traffic management, access and parking requirements.

6 • Former aquatic and leisure facility use at site.


6 • Current aquatic and leisure facility use at site.




Site Assessment

Criteria



Comment

Site 2 Todd Park


Site 3 Kogarah

War Memorial

Pool


Site 4 Sans Souci

Leisure Centre


• Significantly increased site visitation will have negative impacts on local neighbourhood.

• Significantly increased site visitation will have impact on local neighbourhood so lower score.

6.Site services 5 • Well serviced site that may require services upgrades for higher services capacity.

• Shared cost of services upgrade with stadium redevelopment allows higher score.

5 • Adequate water supplies past site but may need pumps for fire services.

• Power substation required.

• Gas services past site adequate.

• No shared services cost opportunity.

• Average score.

4 • New water main from Princes Highway (est. $1.3M services and $600K reinstatement.

• Power substation required.

• Gas service upgrade needed.

• No shared services cost opportunity.

• Below average score.

3 • Existing serviced site that may require services upgrades for higher services capacity.

• No shared services cost opportunity so lower score.

7.Site access and traffic impacts

8 • Directly off major road and existing access roads.

7 • Major road access

• Signalled intersection will require upgrade.

• Easement off Princes Hwy option for southbound access

• Requires traffic plan

• High score

5 • Access via secondary road to main road.

• Currently 2,400+ vehicle movements/day in Carwar Avenue.

• RALC likely to double traffic movements

• Average score.

5 • Poor access from main road so lower score.

8. Site development costs

2 • Requires major stadium works to be funded before site becomes available for ALC.

• Likely highest cost development due to small site and need for basement car parking.

6 • Level and clear site so lower development costs.

• Largest land area of the sites.

• No known contaminated soil, water table constraints or foundation issues.

4 • Current failed pool structure and poor soil foundation.

• Significant amount of contaminated soil to be removed.

• High-water table so high development cost site of major structure.

3 • Need to demolish existing indoor pool.

• Long narrow site will see higher cost design.

• Likely poor soil foundation, contaminated soil and high-water table indicate high development cost site.



Site Assessment

Criteria



Comment

Site 2 Todd Park


Site 3 Kogarah

War Memorial

Pool


Site 4 Sans Souci

Leisure Centre


9. Location to catchment population

7 • Population modelling shows 224,051 current user catchment and 264,141 future user catchment live in the ALC primary user catchment zone.

• 2nd highest user catchment.


• Highest user catchment.


• 3rd highest user catchment.


• Lowest user catchment.

10. Neighbourhood impacts/effects

7 • Existing events venue hosting 12 to 15 major events/year.

• Located adjoining major road so already experiencing 48,000 vehicle movements.

• Not expected to have major neighbourhood effects as parking is at basement levels.

6 • Existing local sport and leisure venue.

• Adjoining major road with 52,000 vehicle movements.

• New ALC likely to attract up to 1,500 new vehicle per day

• Limited neighbourhood effects.

4 • Existing sport and recreation site attracting 65,000 annual visits.

• Major neighbourhood impacts expected from 1,200 to 1,500 vehicle movements day from 600,000 plus visit RALC.

5 • Existing sport and recreation site attracting estimated 150,000 to 200,000 annual visits.

• Adjoining major road with 56,000 vehicle movements.

• Some neighbourhood impacts expected from 1,200 vehicle movements from 600,000 plus visit ALC.

11. Compatible use

7 • High compatibility with existing site use/users.

• Opportunity for high performance team use.

• Commercial car park use.

7 • Compatibility with existing site use and function.



• No easy way to access from main road so need new road access plan.

12. Image of site

7 • Established Sydney major events venue with capacity to improve user experience with new car parking.

6 • Currently lower standard sports field area.

• Improved use/image with Regional ALC on site.

6 • Currently local and district level facilities on site.

• Provides for local and district use so scores above average.

5 • Local and district aquatic leisure centre site image off main road so lower score due to access and low passing traffic/visibility.

13. Shared development opportunities

7 • Major upgrade to stadium linked to regional ALC will share services, car parking and

7 • Opportunity with 4.15ha of land to develop future indoor sport and other

7 • Major facility development in a local/district facility location with limited

5 • Major facility development in a local/district facility location with limited



Site Assessment

Criteria



Comment

Site 2 Todd Park


Site 3 Kogarah

War Memorial

Pool


Site 4 Sans Souci

Leisure Centre


provide area for high performance athletes for cross training.

community facilities at this site.

share development opportunities unless more playing fields used.

share development opportunities.

14. Development & functional design impacts

2 • Limited land area and design driven by development above and below see low score.

• Merged development that will limit visibility from traffic.

8 • Largest development site on level ground sees limited major development and design impacts.

• Opportunity to build on active edge to roadway to provide highly visible development.

6 • Poor soil, foundation and water table issue conditions will impact on where facilities can be built on site.

• Small site may require multi-level development and higher costs

• May require basement car parking to minimise take up of playing fields.

3 • Long narrow site with existing outdoor 50m pool determining design.

• Poor standard indoor aquatic area possibly requires demolition.

• Adjoining parkland required to meet development footplate.

15. Future development expansion land

1 • No future development expansion land available.

• Low score due to restricted future development site.

7 • Largest development site with 4.15ha land area so good options for future expansion allowed for.

5 • Have to further encroach into existing sports fields for future expansion.

• Has an opportunity for future expansion so average score.

3 • Limited further land available for future development expansion so low score.

16. Impacts to existing users

6 • Development will bring large numbers of people to use facilities/services on a daily basis so will not greatly impact on existing users except for major event days (12 approx. year).

• New activity areas will be able to be used by potential stadium tenant clubs/teams.

5 • Need to develop a layout and concept plan to determine how much of site would be used for the regional ALC and what land was left.

• May require all sports ground users to be relocated.

• Average score as will impact existing users.

6 • Development will require take-over of at least 1.25ha of sports fields

• Need to identify which sports ground users to be relocated.

• Above medium score as will impact some existing users

3 • Development will require takeover of public park area to provide new facilities and car parking

• Low score as will require all of SSLC site and large portion of surrounding land.

Total Score 85 110 86 67



8.3.1 Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Score and Key Findings

The site assessment review against the 16 successful site assessment criteria highlights the following scores and key findings.

Table 43: Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Site Assessment Review Score and Key Findings

Site Assessment Criteria

Site 1 Kogarah Stadium Site 2 Todd Park Site 3 Kogarah War Memorial Pool Site 4 Sans Souci Leisure Centre

Total Site Assessment Score

85 110 86 67

Site Assessment Summary Findings

• Third ranked site with a site assessment score of 85/160.

• Site only available for consideration if GRC determines to develop the stadium as proposed and then opportunity for Regional ALC can be further considered.

• If GRC do not go ahead with stadium redevelopment then this site should not be considered further.

• Likely to be the highest development cost project as linked to stadium redevelopment and precinct improvements.

• No capacity for indoor sport or other community facilities to be added to Regional ALC. (RALC).

• Has design constraints as area for RALC is determined by stadium development.

• No capacity for future extensions.

• Concept Plan has 715 car parks included and sufficient building footplate for multi storey development.

• Located to service second biggest current and future user catchment.

• First ranked site with 110/160.

• Site has the largest potential land area at 4.150ha.

• Level site with good ground and soil conditions based on adjoining land data.

• Can meet land area development needs as well as have land for future development opportunities.

• Allows for development of indoor sport and other community facilities at site.

• Relocation of some or all tenant sport clubs & facilities will add to the overall development cost so need to determine options for relocation.

• High profile site with 4.150 hectares of development area.

• High passing traffic site with on average 52,000 vehicle movements on weekdays

• No design constraints due to large site and many options to layout on site.

• Site services review indicates:

• Second ranked site with 86/160.

• Preferred site by the majority of submission lodgers.

• Requires as a minimum use of at least 1.25ha of sports fields for proposed RALC development unless basement car parking is provided at significant development cost (due to contaminated soil, high water table and poor ground foundations).

• Local bus stop close to site with short walk to KWMP site.

• Access to site by Carwar Avenue (secondary road main access) from Princes Hwy. Currently 2,500 vehicle movements daily and likely to double if RALC built at Carss Park so expect will have impact on local neighbourhood.

• Need to meet the cost of demolishing existing facilities.

• Significant levels of contaminated soil on site that will need to be removed adding to development cost.

• Poor soil and foundation conditions with high concentration of alluvial soils.

• last ranked site with 67/160.

• Has largest passing vehicle movement at 56,000 vehicles.

• Only outdoor 50m pool in GRC area and has been updated/improved ($3.3m upgrade).

• Smallest development site so requires joining of park and car park to the development site.

• Limited future expansion land site.

• Land locked by main road and river.

• Long narrow site will restrict future RALC design and functionality.

• Existing indoor pool has no access and small concourses so needs to be demolished for RALC development to fit functionally on site.

• Lowest current and future primary user catchment population.

• Access to site is limited from main roads.



Site Assessment Criteria

Site 1 Kogarah Stadium Site 2 Todd Park Site 3 Kogarah War Memorial Pool Site 4 Sans Souci Leisure Centre

• Currently is a high-profile site with approximately 48,000 vehicles passing the site daily.

• Good public transport access to site.

– Adequate water supplies past site to meet fire service but may need pump boost.

– Power supply will require new substation

– Gas supply is adequate.

– Located to service largest current and future primary user catchment.

– Good public transport access to site.

– Need to determine strategy for relocation of sports clubs and associated cost for replacement facilities.

• High water table will add to site foundation and multi-level development costs.

• Site services review indicates:

– Only 100mm water supply to site so will require new 200mm+ supply from Princes Hwy down Carwar Avenue at estimated cost of $1.3M plus $600,000 asset reinstatement and added cost to connect to main on eastern side of Princes Hwy.

– Power supply will require new substation

– Gas supply will require upgrade as only domestic supply to site.

– Limited car parking and land area may require multideck car park (likely to be 100% to 150% increase on at grade car park costs).

– Need to determine strategy for relocation of sports clubs impacted by RALC development and associated cost for replacement facilities.

– Potential opportunity for re-use of the KWMP site for more sports fields or open space area.

– Carss Park Masterplan underway to help inform potential future use of this site.



Based on the updated site review assessment scores, Todd Park with a score of 110 out of a possible 160 is identified as the highest-ranking site. The Kogarah War Memorial Pool site was rated as the second-best site with a score of 86/160. The Kogarah Stadium (85/160) was the third highest score site but would only be a future RALC candidate site if significant redevelopment of the site occurred to enable the proposed facilities to be developed above the basement level car parking. Sans Souci Leisure Centre (SSLC) scored last at (67/160) as it is poorly located on a narrow site with limited car parking and available land. The SSLC site though well positioned with the highest passing traffic of all sites (56,000 vehicle movements past this site a weekday) it is a difficult site to access from the main road due to limited turning lanes and is located at a lower level than the road. It is also on a narrow land area with varied undulation that does not suit aquatic leisure centre development.



9. Final Draft Report Public Submissions Summary

OPG prepared a final draft report and presented it to a Council forum in mid-December 2019. It was also tabled at December 2019 Council meeting where it was determined to place the final draft report on public display and seek written submissions related to the report. The final draft report was put on public display from the 23 December 2019 with submission lodgement closing on the 28 February 2020. Four public information sessions on the project and the final draft report (2 daytime/2 evening) were also held on the 13 and 14 February 2020. Following a presentation on the draft report information and findings, participants at these sessions were invited, to discuss a range of issues. An overview of key public submission themes and the information session key issues responses are detailed in the following sections.

9.1 Final Draft Report Public Submission Themes

Approximately 400 legitimate submissions (which totalled 200+ pages of text) were reviewed and assessed. It should be noted there were a large range of submissions that were not reviewed as they were deemed to not be legitimately lodged by identifiable persons or were deemed to be fraudulent with these being referred to the police. It has been a difficult task to assess the public submissions due to many submissions covering a large range of issues across a large range of subjects and points of view, whilst others covered only limited issues. OPG has documented all submissions into a summary document that covers each submitters word for word submission. We have also developed a key themes summary as follows:

Future Preferred RALC Site

The majority of submissions support retaining/redevelopment of Carss Park Swimming Pool – approximately 344 responses A total of 47 submissions supporting the other sites being:

a) Todd Park – 35 responses

b) Jubilee Stadium – 10responses

c) Sans Souci – 2 responses The following graph on the next page lists the responses to the future RALC preferred site.



Figure 23: Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Preferred Site The primary reasons for supporting Carss Park as a preferred location (note many submissions listed multiple responses) included:

a) Community support this site – 144 responses

b) Heritage of the site – 126 responses

c) Grew up using the site/ always been there – 143 responses

d) Quiet/tranquil location – 80 responses

e) Financial commitment from Prime Minister – 94 responses

f) Geotech report suggesting it can be built at this site – 70 responses The primary reasons for supporting Carss Park for the future RALC site are detailed in the following graph.

Figure 24: Reasons for Supporting Carss Park for the future RALC site

344

3510 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Carrs Park / KogarahMemorial

Todd Park Jubilee Stadium Sans Souci

RALC P re fe r red S i te

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Reasons for supporting Carss Park



The main reasons for not supporting other site locations included:

• Oppose Todd Park due to loss of open space – 80 responses

• Oppose Todd Park due to access/traffic/parking – 110 responses

• Oppose Jubilee Stadium due to access/traffic/parking – 117 responses These responses are graphed below.

Figure 25: Reasons for opposition to Todd Park and Jubilee Stadium There were also a number of people who expressed concerns relating to increased traffic if a regional aquatic facility was developed at the existing Carss Park site and/or a lack of public transport – 26 responses

1. Facility component priorities The following facility components were identified as a priority for a future RALC:

• Need for a 50m outdoor pool – 44 responses

• Need for a 25m indoor pool – 32 responses

• Need for a gym/health and fitness space – 24 responses

• Need for hydrotherapy pool – 16 responses

• Need for waterplay – 15 responses These priority components have been listed in the following graph.

Figure 26: Preferred Aquatic Facility Elements

05

101520253035404550

50m outdoorpool

25m indoorpool

Gym/healthand fitness

space

Hydrotherapypool

Waterplay

Preferred aquatic facility elements

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Oppose Todd Park due to loss of openspace

Oppose Todd Park due toaccess/traffic/parking

Oppose Jubilee Stadium due toaccess/traffic/parking

Reasons for oppositon to Todd Park and Jubilee Stadium



9.2 Final Draft Report Information Themes

OPG conducted four community consultation workshops in February 2020. The purpose of the workshops included:

1. To present findings from the Draft Regional Aquatic Centre Feasibility Study

2. To provide a forum for community members to express their feedback on the Draft study. Attendance at the four workshops included:

• Wednesday 12 February 2020, 1:30pm – 16 participants

• Wednesday 12 February 2020, 7:00pm – 10 participants

• Thursday 13 February 2020, 10:00am – 6 participants

• Thursday 13 February 2020, 7:00pm - 25 participants It is noted that a range of Georges River Councillors attended and are included in the above attendance figures. All participants of the workshops were also encouraged to consider writing a formal submission on the Final Draft Report. Following a formal presentation, participants were then grouped around one of three tables to discuss the report in more detail. Three questions were used to commence these breakout sessions. Below is a summary of the main responses to these questions:

1. Proposed Regional Aquatic Centre - is there a need for it/demand? Do you support or not support?

• Most participants agreed that there is a need for an aquatic facility.

• Some believe that there is a need for a regional level facility, others just wanted a replacement of Carss Park.

• Concern about access to aquatic facilities whilst Carss Park is closed / new regional centre is redeveloped.

1. Response to the Components for Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre and activity areas. What do you like/not like?

Participants noted that a regional aquatic centre should include the following priority activity components:

• 50m outdoor with flexible boom, adjustable depth (if budget allows)

• 25m indoor pool

• Learn to swim/program pool

• Warm water/rehabilitation pool

• Spa and sauna

• Water play/splash pad/water slides

• Gym

• Café

• Creche

• Sporting history museum



2. Response to the site assessment and recommendation. Like or dislike and why? Majority of people did not agree with the site assessment due to the following key reasons:

• Believe the criteria should be weighted.

• Did not agree with high visibility road being important.

• Strong opposition to Jubilee Stadium.

• Todd Park is too difficult to access.

• Todd Park not being an appealing place to swim.

• Todd Park and loss of open space - open space provision should be considered as part of assessment.

• History of the site needs to be assessed.

3. Other comments:

• Questions about not including children in surveying.

• Feel like they have not been heard or listed to.

• Frustration that they have not seen plans for Jubilee Stadium.

• Other sites recommended such as Gannon’s Park, Peakhurst and the site of an old Council depot.

• Value of aquatic centres being a similar comparison to libraries. i.e. they do not need to be financially viable.



10. Project Findings and Recommendations

This report covers more than nine months of research, engagement, consultation on the need for a Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre (RALC) in the Georges River Council (GRC) area. The market research and industry trend findings indicate there is substantial need, unmet demand and public support for a new RALC in the GRC area to meet current and future residents demand for aquatic leisure facilities created by:

• Ageing and non-contemporary facilities.

• Facilities that don’t have the activity areas to meet all potential user markets.

• An increasing population that will continue to increase resulting in some areas higher density development planned.

• Closure of Kogarah War Memorial Pool (KWMP) which had been attracting more than 60,000 visits annually.

• Non financially sustainable outdoor aquatic facilities at KWMP costing on average $450,000 to $550,000 annually to operate.

• Concern by residents on the closure of KWMP and the lack of a 50-metre pool in the LGA. The household telephone survey results clearly document residents low use of aquatic leisure centres and shows residents living in the GRC area currently make lower than average use of aquatic facilities compared to other Sydney Metropolitan Council Areas surveyed over the past few years. Survey findings indicate only 36% of residents had visited/used an aquatic leisure centre in the past 12 months. When extrapolated against current population this equates to approximately 55,000 GRC residents using aquatic leisure facilities whilst just under 100,000 residents are not making use of such facilities. OPG has completed more than 20 similar aquatic participation surveys and have found in surrounding Sydney LGAs facility aquatic leisure facility usage rates of 50% to 60% of the population. This also indicates Council can stimulate resident’s aquatic leisure activity rates. This is by supporting new and improved aquatic leisure facilities that offer contemporary activity areas to cater for a much broader range of resident’s interests and activity needs than the traditional 1960s facility can offer. This trend is well proven already in GRC where Council has developed the State’s most used and financially viable Aquatic Centre at Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre (HALC). Planning for new aquatic leisure facilities to replace long standing community pools, especially for a regional size and use scale are highly contentious, high cost projects that impact many people. This is especially so for this project where the forced closure of the KWMP (at the commencement of this study due to environmental impact reasons) has taken many peoples’ focus off the intent of the study. This was to identify a broad range of community needs and to best plan a new facility for the long term needs of the whole community. The closure of the KWMP has triggered a strong public feedback focus on the desire to replicate/reinstate a much loved 1960s community swimming pool that people grew up with and from their perspective has served local residents well. Though not many people use such facilities in Sydney anymore, many submitters to this project have noted their main concerns are based on historical retention of a once well used facility. This is in contrast to what industry trends tell us, which is that in order to attract people of all ages we need to offer a broad range of facilities, programs and services at the one site.



Research undertaken as part of this study on industry trends and Council’s own experience in operating 1960’s facilities show that these older style facilities have, over the past few decades, continually lost user attraction and cost more to operate and maintain each year as they age. The KWMP visitation which in its heyday in the 1980s would attract 150,000 plus users annually had dropped by 2018 to just 60,000 visits annually whilst costing up to $550,000 per year operate. Many project submitters have indicated some of this drop off in use is due to ageing and poorly maintained facilities and we agree this would impact on user attraction. However, many submitters were not prepared to acknowledge that a reduction in usage and increasing maintenance cost trends have occurred across Sydney Metropolitan and Regional NSW in most aged, outdoor pools. Further to this is the increasing number of Sydney and Regional NSW LGAs that are redeveloping and replacing older facilities with modern, contemporary aquatic leisure facilities. This study highlights these trends by providing case studies of old facilities currently being replaced by major new facilities under design and construction at Ashfield, Parramatta, North Sydney, Baulkham Hills and Botany. OPG acknowledges this project has attracted significant number of public submissions and feedback with 85% plus requesting Council redevelop an aquatic facility at Carss Park. There is general agreement from submitters for the need for new aquatic facilities in the LGA and support for facility components as proposed for the RALC. The community responses have shown there is much contention over the best location for such a facility. OPG’s 30 years of facility planning and development experience has shown that the location of a facility is usually the most publicly contentious issue, especially where it is determined that the most feasible option is to move a facility to a new site. This was demonstrated by the high number of submitters noting that there is only one preferred site to consider, which is where KWMP is now. This is why OPG has developed and used the proven successful aquatic leisure centre site assessment criteria to help Council determine the best future site for such a major long term and high cost development. The site assessment review provides at feasibility stage that Todd Park is the best site for a future regional aquatic leisure centre scoring 110/160 points compared to Kogarah War Memorial Pool site at 86/160 points. This report provides a guide to the likely most sustainable and high use/attractor components for the proposed RALC as well as the potential best site to locate such a facility to attract high use. So it is essential that Council reviews these report findings and considers there is need and demand for a major facility that could attract 700,000 to 800,000 annual visits if the right components are built, it is located in a high profile location that draws on maximum user catchments and is managed professionally to offer as broad range of programs and services. The studies key findings based on the project scope/outputs are detailed as follows. 1. Demand and Need for a New Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre The studies market research and community engagement processes clearly highlight the need and support for a new RALC in the GRC area. Development of a contemporary RALC that offers high use attractor activity areas, programs and services to a broad range of user markets is likely to directly stimulate residents current low use of such facilities. The population and participation gap analysis indicate that Council needs to develop a regional size facility designed to cater for 100,000 plus residents which at this size can attract high revenues to directly assist in meeting Council’s operational and asset renewal sustainability objectives. 2. Opportunities to improve Resident Access to Aquatic Facilities Development of a state-of-the-art RALC will provide significant opportunity to improve resident access to aquatic facilities. To ensure maximum attraction and use and a sustainable facility it is recommended it



contains the following highly requested facility components (see Section 7.2 for detailed component brief of the 9,534m2 footplate building): Aquatic Areas

• Multi-use 50m s x 10 lane FINA compliant swimming pool with access ramp and moveable boom or swim wall (may be indoor or outdoor subject to further business modelling)

• Shared program/learn to swim and leisure pool with toddler’s water area.

• Warm water program pool with adjoining spas and saunas

• Water play and splash pad

• Waterslides and adventure water Health, Fitness and Wellness Facilities

• Gym and weight facilities

• Group fitness rooms

• Wellness centre

Social and Retail Facilities

• Café and social area

• Merchandise area

• Community/function/meeting areas Customer Service Facilities

• 300 vehicle carparks

• Plant rooms and amenities Further feasibility work should be completed on complimentary community activity areas that could be added, such as indoor sport, childcare, library services, health care and community and social services. 3. Most Suitable Site for Development of a Sustainable & High Use Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Section 8 of the report provides a detailed analysis of four potential sites against the criteria used to measure successful and sustainable sites for the development of the proposed RALC. The recommendation upon completion of the feasibility study is that Council adopt, in principle, Todd Park as the proposed site for the facility and undertake detailed site investigations at this recommended site. The Todd Park site locates the new facility within a large potential user catchment area as well as taking into consideration the future expanding population catchment. Todd Park is a highly visible location on the Princes Highway with an estimated 52,000 plus vehicle movements past the site on weekdays. The site provides the largest level land area of 4.15ha. Due to its large site capacity this location can adequately cater for other community facility co-locations as well as potential future facility expansion for indoor sport, wellness and community services. The next step in the process if for Council to undertake more detailed, site specific service, utility, geotechnical and civil investigations to ensure that this site can support the development proposed. Many of these investigation items require detailed testing and the development of a construction footplate drawing to enable planning and service authorities to provide the required information.



It is therefore recommended that Council agree in principle that Todd Park is the most suitable site for the proposed RALC and complete the following further detailed site investigations:


• Development of a construction footplate plan to test the need for civil works such as site levelling, cut and fill or terracing.

• Complete a detailed available services review (power, water, gas, telecommunications) and future

services capacity against the service needs of the development.

• Ground condition review including soil tests for foundations, water table etc.




• Environmental sustainability review to test best ESD orientation options, design and component

functional options and any restrictions to design such as site levels etc.

• Indicative cost of development review– capital cost plan to see if site has any cost issues related to development/design.

• Review of options to relocate clubs/users, currently using the site and identification of cost and social/community impacts.

4. Indicative Capital Development Cost Estimate When applying current, known construction costs for similar facilities in Metropolitan Sydney to a 9,500m2 facility footplate development, the likely capital cost for this development would be in the order of $52.6M to $57.4M. Additional costs will be incurred for car parking and access roads, services upgrades and landscaping. Collectively this could take the total project cost estimates at the preplan stage to between $55M - $60M. It is essential in the next phase of planning that schematic concept footplate plans are completed to guide site investigations. An experienced Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Quantity Surveyor must then be engaged to develop an indicative cost plan to guide the project budget and funding strategy. 5. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding and Staging Industry trends indicate there is now a significant precedent when large regional facilities are being planned that they are able to be staged (based on a masterplan design approach). Shared funding model precedents are now also common place for a large range of projects, therefore Council should not have to provide all the funding. Section 6.5 of the report provides a range of shared funded aquatic leisure facility projects across Australia to document these funding precedents. It will be critical in order to attract significant funding support for this project that Council develops a comprehensive shared funding strategy based on other major projects. Council should plan for up to $20M in funding support from the Commonwealth and State Government with each contributing $10M. If this funding support can be achieved, then the overall project cost to Council could be in the order of $35M to $40M.



6. Operational Sustainability A review of Council’s current and historical operation of its three aquatic facilities indicates that the Hurstville Aquatic Leisure Centre raises sufficient income to meet the full cost of management, operations, asset renewal and depreciation. Conversely, the annual operation and depreciation costs for the Kogarah War Memorial Pool have cost Council in the order of $450,000 to $550,000 annually. A review of similar indoor and outdoor aquatic leisure facilities in Sydney supports these operational sustainability trends with all outdoor pools reviewed (see Section 6.4) recording operating losses whilst all but two of the large aquatic leisure centres in Sydney (see Section 7.6) also operating with surpluses after operating costs. This highlights the need for Council to develop the recommended components at a high-profile site to attract high use (sustainable facility target of 700,000 to 800,000+ annual visits) to raise sufficient income to meet operating and asset maintenance and renewal costs. 7. Compatibility with the Open Space, Recreation and Community Facility Strategy OPG has reviewed and used Council’s adopted community facility planning guide (see Section 7.2) to help scope the proposed RALC and its recommended siting. OPG also endorses the recommended facility development policy of clustering and connecting other potential complimentary community facilities and building capacity in the longer term for this to occur in order to develop a true community activity and social hub. 8. Consideration of Regional Aquatic Facility Development in Surrounding LGAs Market research and interviews with surrounding LGAs indicate no proposed new aquatic facility development to the south and west of the Georges River LGA area. There are proposed existing aquatic facility upgrades to the north and the west, but no funding or timing of these projects is known at this stage. The recommended siting of the RALC at Todd Park takes into account known future surrounding LGA aquatic facility development.



10.1 Project Recommendations

Based on the project findings against the key study outputs OPG makes the following project recommendations to GRC. Table 44: Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Recommendations

Category Recommendation

1. Demand and Need for a Future Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre

That Council recognise and endorse the study’s findings for the need to develop a sustainable and high use Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre to best meet current and future resident aquatic leisure needs.

2. Regional Aquatic Leisure Facility Priority Components

To ensure maximum user attraction and sustainable operations Council adopt the recommended facility component schedule as listed in Section 7.2 of this report.

3. Most Suitable Site for the Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre

That Council agree in principle that Todd Park is the most suitable site for the proposed Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre and provide funds to complete detailed site assessment to provide further site information for Council to consider a final site report including:


• Development of a preliminary concept footplate plan to test if need for civil works such as site levelling, cut and fill or terracing.

• Complete a detailed available services review (power, water, gas etc) and future services capacity against the service needs of the development.

• Ground condition review, soil tests for foundations, water table etc.




• Environmental sustainability review to test best ESD orientation options, design & component functional options and any restrictions to design such as site levels etc.

• Indicative cost of development review– capital cost plan to see if site has any cost issues related to development/design.

• Review on options to relocate clubs/users, currently using the site and what are the cost and social/community impacts.

4. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Preliminary Business Case/ Plan

Should the site investigations identify that the site and preliminary cost estimates are favourable, Council should determine whether it wishes to develop a preliminary business case. Should Council decide it wishes to proceed on this basis, Council should commission a Regional Aquatic Centre Preliminary Business Case and Plan to provide advice on management, operations, usage and financial sustainability for the proposed facility.

5. Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Project Staging and Funding Strategy

That Council form a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre Funding Strategy Group to review and identify project costs, timing, staging and develop a recommended future funding strategy for the project.

6. Review of Detailed Site, Business Plan and Funding Strategy Findings

That Council use the detailed site, business plan and funding strategy findings to help assess if it will adopt the development of a Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre as a future community facility priority project.



11. Warranties and Disclaimers

The information contained in this report is provided in good faith. While Otium Planning Group has applied their own experience to the task, they have relied upon information supplied to them by other persons and organisations. We have not conducted an audit of the information provided by others but have accepted it in good faith. Some of the information may have been provided ‘commercial in confidence’ and as such these venues or sources of information are not specifically identified. Readers should be aware that the preparation of this report may have necessitated projections of the future that are inherently uncertain and that our opinion is based on the underlying representations, assumptions and projections detailed in this report. There will be differences between projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected and those differences may be material. We do not express an opinion as to whether actual results will approximate projected results, nor can we confirm, underwrite or guarantee the achievability of the projections as it is not possible to substantiate assumptions which are based on future events. Accordingly, neither Otium Planning Group, nor any member or employee of Otium Planning Group, undertakes responsibility arising in any way whatsoever to any persons other than client in respect of this report, for any errors or omissions herein, arising through negligence or otherwise however caused.



Appendix 1 – Georges River Council Catchment Area Population Profile





Documents

REGIONAL AQUATIC FACILITY SITE SUITABILITY AND … · Regional Aquatic Facility Site Suitability & Feasibility Study Final Report Prepared for Georges River Council 21/05/2020 Page