Logo Watermark

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agenda

Extraordinary Meeting of Council

2 August 2021

The meeting commences at 6.30pm. If members of the public are

not interested in any business recommended to be considered in

Closed Session or there is no such business, Council will ordinarily

  commence consideration of all other business at 7pm.

 

LC_WebBanner


 

Notice of Meeting

 

Dear Councillors

 

Notice is given of the Extraordinary Meeting of Council, to be held in the Council Chambers on Monday 2 August 2021 commencing at 7pm. The business to be transacted at the meeting is included in this business paper.

 

Yours faithfully

Craig - GM

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

 

Council Meeting Procedures

 

The Council meeting is chaired by the Mayor, Councillor Pam Palmer. Councillors are entitled to one vote on a matter. If votes are equal, the Chairperson has a second or casting vote. When a majority of Councillors vote in favour of a Motion it becomes a decision of the Council. Minutes of Council and Committee meetings are published on Council’s website www.lanecove.nsw.gov.au by 5pm on the Thursday following the meeting.

 

The Meeting is conducted in accordance with Council's Code of Meeting Practice. The order of business is listed in the Agenda on the next page. That order will be followed unless Council resolves to modify the order at the meeting. This may occur for example where the members of the public in attendance are interested in specific items on the agenda.

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for a maximum of 3 minutes during the public forum which is held at the beginning of the meeting. To speak at a public forum you must register your details with Council by 5:00pm on the day of the Council meeting at which you will be speaking.  Please see the website for special arrangements under COVID-19 restrictions.  All persons addressing the Meeting must speak to the Chair. Speakers and Councillors will not enter into general debate or ask questions.

 

If you do not understand any part of the information given above; require assistance to participate in the meeting due to a disability; or wish to obtain information in relation to Council, please contact Council’s Executive Manager – Corporate Services on (02) 9911 3550.

 

Please note meetings held in the Council Chambers are recorded on tape for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of minutes and the tapes are not disclosed to any third party under the Government Information (Public Access)  Act 2009, except as allowed under section 18(1) or section 19(1) of the PPIP Act, or where Council is compelled to do so by court order, warrant or subpoena or by any other legislation.

 

 

 


Extraordinary Meeting of Council 2 August 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

 

APOLOGIES

 

OPENING OF MEETING WITH PRAYER

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO COUNTRY

 

NOTICE OF WEBCASTING OF MEETING

 

MATTERS RECOMMENDED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER TO BE CONSIDERED IN CLOSED COMMITTEE

 

public forum

 

Members of the public may address the Council Meeting on any issue for 3 minutes.

 

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

 

1.      EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL - 19 JULY 2021

 

Orders Of The Day

 

Officer Reports for Determination

 

2.       Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval 4

 

3.       Addendum to Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval......................................................................................................... 47

 

 

 

 


 

Extraordinary Meeting of Council Meeting 02 August 2021

Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval

 

 

Subject:          Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval    

Record No:    SU8412 - 46381/21

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko; Ted Webster; Bryan Dempsey; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

Council considered a report in relation to the tender for Construction and Installation of “Synthetic Sports Field and Associated Infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval. Council deferred consideration pending a workshop, which was conducted on 26 July, 2021. The questions and associated answers are provided for information and consideration by Council in determining the matter. It is recommended the Tender be accepted.

 

Background

 

Council at its meeting of 19 July, 2021 considered “Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval” and resolved, that-

 

“1.     Consideration of the tender for Construction and Installation of “Synthetic Sports Field and Associated Infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval” be postponed to an Extraordinary Council meeting on 2 August 2021 at 7.00pm;

2.       Council convene a workshop on 26 July 2021 at 6:30pm to discuss the Dr Mick Battam’s natural grass proposal and the synthetic grass proposal;

3.       Council invite Dr Mick Battam, a representative from Synergy Turf Manufacturing, Councillors, staff as determined by the General Manager, Frank Hamersley from Greenwich Sports Club and Martin Cunningham (from The Natural Grass at BCO Association Inc.);

4.       Councillors be given the opportunity to submit questions to the General Manager by Wednesday 21 July 2021 midnight for the workshop and be given the opportunity to ask questions during the workshop; and

5.       Council produce a report based on the workshop before the Extraordinary Council meeting.”

A Workshop was subsequently held 26 July 2021 at 6:30pm. In relation to the attendees, concerns were made about potential conflicts of interest in relation to the external parties presenting. Council also received requests for additional participants to assist in responding to questions. To address the issues, the workshop format and attendees were as follows:-

 

6.30 - 7.30 - "Natural Grass" Dr Mick Battam – Doctorate in Agricultural Science (Soil Science), AgEnviro Solutions, Martin Cunningham and Dennis Karp

7.30 - 8.00 minutes - John Neyland - Bachelor Agricultural Science (Honors), Agronomist at Sports Eng, consultants for natural grass and synthetic fields (Refer resume AT-2)

8.00 - 9.00 hour - "Synthetic Turf Group" Martin Sheppard, Smart Connection Consultancy, Frank Hamersley and Daniel Ristic from Football NSW.

 

Each group presented in isolation to the other groups.

 

 

 

Discussion

 

Councillors were invited to submit questions for the workshop by midnight Wednesday 21 July 2021. Over 120 questions were ultimately received, not all were within the scope of the workshop. Given the large number, the questions were prioritised, and a number of the questions were then provided to the speakers in advance. Speakers commenced their session with a presentation and then moved onto questions, with Councillors then provided with the opportunity to ask questions in response to the speakers address. Under the Code of Meeting Practice Councillors are not permitted to debate matters at the workshop.

 

Included as AT-1 are the questions and short form answers for information and consideration by Council in determining the matter. AgEnviro      were afforded the opportunity to review comments directly attributed to them which have been included in summary form.

 

The following provides a quick reference summary based on the categories, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

 

Synthetic

Natural Grass

 

 

Maintenance - Questions 1 -4

Heat • Past decade temp has been reduced by 25% in crumb rubber, No rubber infill expected to be similar to cork infills (a further 25% lower)

Heat •No change

Annual Maintenance - $13,000

Annual Maintenance - $27,000

Costs - Questions 4-15

 Project Costs

Grant Est

Tender

Turf Estimate

 

Synthetic

Synthetic

AgEnviro

Sport Eng

 Exc GST

 $3,293,657

 $4,635,122

 $3,174,122

 $3,510,746

 Council (Funding) / Saving

 $-

 ($1,341,465)

 $131,489

 ($217,089)

 

 

Additional funding – Council’s Developer Contributions Plan Works Schedule provides $5M for synthetic fields which can fund the proposed shortfall, Council can apply next round for additional DPIE funding. NSFA have committed a minimum of $125,000.

Additional funding -The AgEnviro solution will result in a project saving. For the Sport Eng solution Council would have sufficient funds in its Capital Works Reserve to cover the shortfall.

Environmental Impact - Questions 16 -26

Impact on Surrounding Environment - These are matters addressed in the REF. The original REF found that on balance the impacts were acceptable.

Impact on Surrounding Environment - These are matters addressed in the REF. It is likely that on balance the impacts would be acceptable.

Leachate and Microplastics – There are none and additional measures are included to prevent any grass strands which are separated from entering the environment

Leachate and Microplastics – Analysis of the impact (if any) of compost, fertilisers etc. would have to be undertaken. There are no microplastics.

Shade – No impact

Shade - AgEnviro advise the impact from shade on the performance of the field is minimal. Sports ENG Agronomist advises, shade on the field will impact performance due to areas not drying out.

Design - Questions 27 -70

Field Longevity • There are no full size 4G football fields in Australia, there are 400 around the world including Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Kenya. The supplier has installed a similar no-infill field in a 5-a-side-football facility 10 years ago to test out the technology.  The product comes with an 8 year warranty

Field Longevity - AgEnviro, The field once redesigned should not require any further full refurbishment if the management and maintenance regime is followed.

Sports Eng, At 35hrs/week there would be turf damage in the goals and centre and wherever there are concentrated training drills. Some turf replacement may be required.

Player Safety - The combination of the grass and shock pad is then tested to ensure it meets FIFA standards.

Player Safety - Local Council grass turf fields are not tested for impact safety

Summer Sport – No impact unless hot weather policy invoked.

Summer Sport – AgEnviro advise the Santa Anna Couch will recover for summer sport. Sports ENG Agronomist, advises, shade on the field will impact recovery of the grass for summer sport.

Community Benefit – Provides maximum additional capacity “there is a need to increase the current supply capacity (fields) by around 26% to 2026”. Within the NSROC region, Lane Cove has the 2nd lowest number of sports fields per capita. Lane Cove has 5.7% participation rate compared to Metro average of 3.8%.

Community Benefit – Provides some additional capacity and retains natural grass field,

Dog Leash Free – No access to synthetic field as a leash free area. A new 4458 sqm leash free area available permanently,i.e.. including when sport is being played.

Dog Leash Free – The field is available when not in use for sport as a leash free area. A smaller 1886 sqm permanent enclosed leash free area could be included at the northern end of the park.

Capacity / Usage  - Questions-70 -

Capacity • Blackman Park B1 synthetic: 58.5 hours p/w. Weekend Play is booked by NSFA for a total of 22 hours per field.

Capacity - AgEnviro advises that the proposed solution can accommodate 45 hours p/w of use plus 15 hours of school use.

Sports ENG Agronomist advises that with full soil reconstruction a maximum of 35 hours p/w use can be supported with some turf damage in the goals and centre.

 

Procurement  - Questions-70 -

Capability - The synthetic turf is manufactured by Greenfields, a global artificial grass company. Synergy Turf include the principal of the company that installed the Blackman Park synthetic fields.

Capability - AgEnviro and Sports ENG Agronomist can ensure an optimal grass turf field.  Council has used Santa Anna Couch on fields B3 and B4 at Blackman Park, which has improved the playing surface.

Viability - Council uses a special contractor to undertake a financial assessment of entities it contracts with and ensures appropriate contract conditions to mitigate financial risk.

Viability - Council uses a special contractor to undertake a financial assessment of entities it contracts with and ensures appropriate contract conditions to mitigate financial risk.

 

Conclusion

The recommendation of staff to proceed with the tender remains on the basis it provides the most capacity to accommodate the current and future demands for sports fields, in line with the NSROC sports field strategies, as there is no alternative to create additional capacity.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.   The tender for the provision of Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval be awarded to Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd for an amount of $3,293,692.33 ex GST;

2.   The General Manager enter into contract for the work, such contract to ensure Council has no obligation to proceed should the future Part 5 assessment not result in approval of the project;

3.   Council note DPIE have indicated that they do not have additional funds available for the project at this time, and continue to pursue opportunities for additional funding from DPIE to cover the additional costs of the project due to inflationary cost escalation and innovations to create the nation’s most environmentally sensitive synthetic playing field;  and\

4.   In the event DPIE and NSFA funding does not cover the full cost of the project, Council fund the balance of the project by varying the 2021/2022 Budget, and including in the 2022/23 budget if necessary, additional funds  from s7.11 Developer Contributions.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Councillor Workshop 26 July 2021 - Bob Campbell Oval All Questions and Answers

26 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

CV John Neylan - Sports Eng

3 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

REPORT to 19 July Council Meeting - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval

10 Pages

 

  


ATTACHMENT 1

Councillor Workshop 26 July 2021 - Bob Campbell Oval All Questions and Answers

 

 

Ref

Question

Synthetic

Natural Grass

Note Syn (Synthetic) and Turf (Natural Turf) refers to which speaker was requested to address a question.

Maintenance

1

How are the 4G pitches dealing with bird, bat and other animal faeces (and the occasional errant dog) that are likely in this area?

 

Blackman Park is groomed fortnightly. The grooming of the field removes any foreign debris on the oval. Over the past 7 years there have been no reported incidents of microbial issues or reports of impacts from fauna on human health resulting from the field.

Natural Grass is mown on a weekly/fortnightly schedule dependant on growth rates. Council has had fields for many years.  There have been no reported incidents of microbial issues or reports of impacts from fauna on human health resulting from the field.

2

I refer to the following recently published academic article

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31517095/

This research article reports "Artificial and natural turfs show own ecosystems with different microbial profiles and a mean Shannon's diversity value of 2.176 and 2.475, respectively. The bacterial community is significantly different between facilities (ANOSIM: R = 0.179; p < 0.001) and surface materials (ANOSIM: R = 0.172; p < 0.005). The relative abundance of potentially pathogenic bacterial OTUs was higher in synthetic than in natural samples (ANOVA, F = 2.2)."

What maintenance approach and schedule is required to reduce exposure of synthetic turf field users to this reported higher level of exposure to pathogenic infections?

Blackman Park is groomed fortnightly. The grooming of the field removes any foreign debris on the oval. Over the past 7 years there have been no reported incidents of microbial issues or reports of impacts from fauna on human health resulting from the field.

Natural Grass is mown on a weekly/fortnightly schedule dependant on growth rates. Council has had fields for many years.  there have been no reported incidents of microbial issues or reports of impacts from fauna on human health resulting from the field.

3

Syn

Is it the case that one of the ways to reduce heat impact is to water synthetic turf.

Is this the case?

If yes, do you agree, doesn’t this reduce the advantage of synthetic over natural grass?

 

Smart Connection advise:-

• Past decade temp has been reduced by 25% in crumb rubber systems

• No rubber infill and FIFA heat category is expected to be similar to cork infills (a further 25% lower)

• Don’t use water to reduce heat, as creates humidity on hot days

• Sports have weather policies to address use, synthetic fields are not impacted by rain events

Council - The Blackman Park synthetic field has black rubber infill and there have been no complaints that it is too hot for users and no water is used to cool the field.

• Sports have weather policies – natural turf fields typically are closed during  rain events

 

4

Has Council’s current maintenance program ever been documented: has it ever been reviewed by a suitably qualified expert?

Council’s scheduled maintenance program for Blackman Park was implemented by the installer and Council has maintained that schedule. 

Council’s Manager for sports fields is a qualified Green Keeper. Industry professionals are contacted if further advice is required.

Costs

6

Syn

Turf

What are the annual maintenance costs including refill, repairs, cleaning of drains etc?

Estimated cost of annual ongoing maintenance

What are the likely annual maintenance costs?

What are council’s current maintenance costs?

The tender price for annual maintenance is $13k per annum based on the existing Blackman Park contract. Three years of maintenance is included in the tender price.

Council’s current maintenance costs are $24k per annum. If the AgEnviro maintenance program is implemented, then the annual maintenance cost is estimated at $16k with Council doing the mowing and rubbish collection, a total of $27,000 . Note this does not include moving the field or hand removing invading grasses. In comparison, Mosman Council pays a contractor $40k p.a.to maintain Middle Head Oval, which is proportionately larger than Bob Campbell Oval.

7

How is a 4G pitch recycled so as to break down the chemical components at end of life?

 

What is the cost of this process and who does it in Australia?

 

Procurement was specifically designed to ensure that the synthetic turf was for a single polymer system that can be easily recycled

Sustainability Victoria have recently invested $0.5m into the development of a synthetic turf recycling facility in regional Victoria. Tuff Group have invested in the facility and it will be operational in 2024. This will be the first synthetic recycling plant in Australia

Northern Beaches Council are proposing to store the synthetic turf from their next upgrade at Cromer Park No.1 Oval and will be looking to recycle this material in the future.

The polymers will be recycled into synthetic grass.

 

8

Please provide forecast life cycle costs for the 4G synthetic pitch, there is a standard requirement for a major refurbishment after 10 years and a major refurbishment after 20 years.

 

What will be the cost of replacing the surface at the end of life?

 

Would there be a requirement for a further refurbishment event?

 

Dr Battam: If your ground improvement proposal is implemented and your maintenance schedule followed, how long would it be before the full ground improvement program would be required to be done again?

What is the useful like of the field

The synthetic grass has an 8 year warranty however, it is expected to last at least 10 years. After this time (using the Tender price) it is estimated that the cost to replace the synthetic grass will be $476k.

The shock pad and drainage cell both have 25 year warranties. However, they are also expected to last longer.

AgEnviro advise - The field once redesigned should not require any further full refurbishment if the management and maintenance regime is followed.

Sports Eng advise – with 35hrs/week over the 6 month winter sports season there will always be the prospect of some turf replacement required.

9

The estimated total cost to refurbish the oval and how this is to be funded

 

How council will fund the shortfall (from S7.11 in St Leonards I suppose)

Tender price is $3,293,692, which includes the field, and ancillary works including lighting, The Bob Campbell Oval project is fully funded under Council's Developer Contributions Plan Works Schedule adopted in 2013. This Plan allocates funds levied on new developments to deliver infrastructure to meet the demands of the population increase associated with development. The Plan includes $5M for synthetic fields (Bob Campbell was identified in 2018 as Council’s priority synthetic field opportunity) and $2.5M for lights and is in addition to a separate allocation for Pottery Green. The DPIE Grant was never originally envisaged.

The AgEnviro solution will result in a project saving. For the Sport Eng solution Council would have sufficient funds in its Capital Works Reserve to cover the shortfall. Council's Developer Contributions Plan Works Schedule adopted in 2013  is specifically for synthetic fields.

10

The estimated costs of all amenities and has this is to be funded

See Q9

Amenities building is estimated at $715,000. There is sufficient funding within the available grant.

11

What is the cost of a rubber filled synthetic field if we don’t go with the woven synthetic?

It is estimated to be a $200k saving between rubber infill and no infill.

There is $188k saving between cork infill and no infill.

 

12

How much has the change of surface from rubber infill to the environment synthetic cost? This scope creep has changed the economics of the project?

Refer Q11

 

13

Economic comparisons

- Grass ,  Synthetic rubber and - Synthetic enviro 

For the entire project and side by side comparison of all 3. 

 

Tender price for Synthetic Field and Ancillary Works with:

No-infill: $3.294M

Cork infill: $3.106M

Rubber infill (estimate): $3.09M

Refer Q14

14

Ttotal cost of the project including all elements and GST, based on the tender price

 

Grant

Tender

Turf

Estimate

 

Synthetic

Synthetic

AgEnviro^

Sport Eng*

 Excavation

 $-  

 $365,365

 $288,437

 Masterplan Works - Field Excluded

 $483,670

 $1,236,741

 $1,236,741

 $1,236,741

 Sports field Permitter Fence

 $58,410

 $121,215

 $-

 $-

 Installation

 $1,276,000

 $1,531,370

 $386,000

 $440,059

 Maintenance 3 yrs

 $39,000

 $81,000

 $91,640

 Preliminaries

 $85,800

 $85,800

 $85,800

 $85,800

 Amenities

 $715,000

 $715,000

 $715,000

 $715,000

 Contingency 15%

 $472,568

 $472,568

 $455,417

 $472,568

 Shared User Path

 $531,575

 $531,575

 $531,575

 $531,575

 Inc GST

 $3,623,023

 $5,098,634

 $3,491,534

 $3,861,820

 Exc GST

 $3,293,657

 $4,635,122

 $3,174,122

 $3,510,746

 Council (Funding) / Saving

 $-

 ($1,341,465)

 $131,489

 ($217,089)

^ All existing soil retained and improved, existing Irrigation retained, additional drainage provided

*Includes 250mm excavation, soil restructure, drainage and irrigation option recommended by Sports Eng, estimated by Council

 

In relation to the material additional component costs of the synthetic option compared to the grant estimates, there was no allowance for escalation from the first grant application Council lodged in 2019 and there has been significant changes in scope. Excavation is a $365,365, 100% increase as Geotech has confirmed the field cannot be just built up on existing soil as originally planned and requires sub-base works. Masterplan Works other than the field, is a $753,071, 55% increase mainly due to the refinement of the scope after community consultation. The original proposal underestimated the extent of landscaping treatments that ended up in the final design; didn’t include the substantial levelling of the site to ensure an at grade transition around the oval; the cost of providing an additional retaining wall adjacent to the creek which was required to meet the heritage impact statement; an increase in the lighting cost; an increase in the fencing cost and improved environmental features such as permeable paving and water sensitive urban design treatments. The Synthetic Field is a $255,370, 20% due to the upgrade to the 4G surface.

15

Any insight you may have why the Department not helping council with the increased costs, due to price increase (due to environmental and ecological reasons as well as inflation)

The DPIE has stated that that is no funding available at this stage. By inference Council can apply in future funding rounds.

 

Environmental Impact

16

Syn

Turf

What are the implications of the following when comparing natural grass and synthetic grass in the context of the above given that the area in which Bob Campbell Oval is situated is at the mouth of a tributary of the Lane Cove River:

a. Climate Change – What are the impacts and plan in place to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change on the natural versus built environments of the oval itself and the estuary;

b. What are the consequences of either option on the water flow from the Gore Creek Tributary in context of flood plain inundation which is currently absorbed by natural grass at BCO and will this be affected by either option (and its supporting structure) in place;

c. What are the changes to the sub surface natural water flow variability in the context of the tributary if either option is installed;

d. What are the effects of water quality and pollutant loads as it effects run off and storm water from either option and what is the impact on water quality into the Lane Cove River estuary and its tributaries;

e. Aquatic and Riparian habitat – how will the synthetic and natural grass compare to protect, enhance and restore aquatic habitats and foreshore vegetation and maintain greenspace as habitat for birds and other biota;.

f. What protective measures are in place to minimise negative impacts of development on the catchment and waterway health if either option is installed;

g. What aquatic ecosystems will either survive or be destroyed by either option;

h. Will either option align with the Coastal Zone Management Plan

These are matters addressed in the REF. The original REF found that on balance the impacts were acceptable.

These are matters addressed in the REF. The original REF found that on balance the impacts were acceptable.

17

Syn

Does a 4G pitch shed plastic strands as it breaks down through sunlight and wear?

The proposed synthetic turf is a woven design that has a tighter hold on the synthetic fibres than a standard synthetic turf. The risk of fibres leaving the field is mitigated by the pollution control measures included in the design.

The tender specification required manufactures to provide a polymer that had a UV resistance additive which met or exceed the FIFA requirements. The FIFA standard for UV additives is 0.04% and the tenderer is proposing 0.09% UV stabiliser in their product. Tenderer has provided an 8 year warranty for the synthetic turf which includes UV resistance.

The maintenance program for the field will include regular grooming which will collect any debris or loose materials from the surface of the field.

 

18

Can the installer of 4G guarantee that plastic will not break off or wear off over time & wash into the harbour?    (Particularly as no traps & kerbs are now proposed).

 

Smart Connection advise:-

1. 1st Generation – 1960’s astrodome

2. 2nd Generation – 1980’s – sand filled soccer fields

3. 3rd Generation – 2000’s – rubber & sand filled

4. 4th Generation – 2015

• Addressing environmental concerns

• Globally around 400 full fields

•  Aus – 10 years ago one was put in at Endeavour High – still there, others have been replaced – 21,500 hours (40 hours a week)

• Technology – Tencate yarn (most durable in past decade), heavier  (weight is 20% heavier, and upgrade thatch)

• It would be tested to the FIFA performance standards (++more)

 

19

Turf

Dr Battam: Please confirm your advice that there is adequate sunlight on BCO to support natural turf.

 

AgEnviro advise the impact from shade on the performance of the field is minimal. This is supported by the near full turf cover that currently exists on the most shaded northeast side of the field which receives much lower levels of wear.

Sports ENG Agronomist advises, shade on the field will impact performance due to areas not drying out. This will impact wear and as Santa Anna is a summer grass, it may become diseased.

20

Dr Battam: In your response to Council’s report, you state under “environmental concerns” that there were “mangrove losses at Blackman Oval following the installation of the synthetic field at that site”.  Could you explain what environmental concern this relates to?

Council – During construction of the creek and wetland beside the Blackman Park synthetic field, there was a storm event where 260mm of rain was recorded over four days. Despite the contractor’s best efforts with the silt and sediment control this storm event washed 200 tonnes of soil on to the mangroves downstream of the creek. Unfortunately, this soil smothered the mangroves and caused them to dieback. After the initial dieback the mangroves immediately re-sprouted and over the past seven years they have steadily been regenerating. They are now up to one metre in height.

The fact that the mangroves re-sprouted immediately after the initial event and their continued growth over the past seven years, goes to show that run-off from the synthetic field or stormwater draining through the mangroves has no detrimental effect on them.

AgEnviro advise that the Mangroves may be impacted due to increased surface water run-off

during storm events. As such, a flood study should be performed on both Blackman Park and the

proposed new synthetic design for Bob Campbell Oval

21

Has Council considered the environmental impact the much greater heat retention/delayed radiation of the synthetic surface will have on the surrounding riparian bushland? 

These are matters addressed in the REF. The original REF found that on balance the impacts were acceptable.

These are matters addressed in the REF. It is likely that on balance the impacts would be acceptable.

22

Why does LCC contradict The EU standard quoted by LCC council - which does not claim that there is no possibility of microplastics migrating into the environment.

Rather, it discusses, on page 8, that 

 

The EU standard relates to synthetic fields with a performance infill. There hasn’t been a standard developed for the new no-infill synthetic fields.

 

23

How has the specification catered for birds (brush turkeys, bower birds, kookaburras, magpies, hooded plovers, white faced herrons, currawongs, etc) landing on the turf and picking at pieces of plastic turf?

 

Birds forage for food in grass/soil, they do not eat grass. There is no reason for a bird to attempt to eat the synthetic grass. Council staff have not observed this behaviour at Blackman Park.

 

24

Why did Councillors consider it was acceptable to encroach into the E2 Environmental Protection zone when there was a scheme provided which did not encroach (except for a corner of the previously-enlarged playground). 

The E2 Zones do not match the bushland boundaries. Detailed information is provided in the Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021

The E2 Zones do not match the bushland boundaries. Detailed information is provided in the Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021

25

The LEP maps are diagrams which have not changed in the Reserve area of Gore Creek, since they began, in 1987.

They are not incorrect and there is not a valid reason provided in the Report for stating that they require amendment.

The E2 Zones are designed to protect existing bushland. The usage of this area is currently for a park/playground. Detailed information is provided in the Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021

The E2 Zones are designed to protect existing bushland. The usage of this area is currently for a park/playground. Detailed information is provided in the Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021

26

Turf

Dr Battam’s Plans:

Measured ongoing environmental impact of herbicides and other chemicals required to maintain a turf field

 

No

 

Design

 

 

27

What are the benefits, if any, for the synthetic turf option, of the bulk earthworks shown in tender documents Sportsfield Drawing , dwg SE_10853_F150  Issue T3. This  dwg SE_10853_F150  Issue T3 shows field is excavated on west side (up to  700 mm reduction)  and built up on east and south side (up  to 700 mm building up) .

 

The synthetic field requires a structural base. The Geotechnical reports dictated the design solution to achieve a ‘flat field’ with underground drainage, while interfacing at grade to the surrounding areas to the field.

AgEnviro advises that although detailed design is not complete, bulk earthworks are not required existing grass would be poisoned, rotary hoed with compost and additional soil added to achieve a consistent even slope across the playing field. The irrigation system is presumed to be capable of applying water evenly across the required are of coverage.

28

Can the installer of 4G guarantee that sand will not wash into the harbour?

The sand is imbedded into the synthetic turf and is not visible to the naked eye. Evidence from similar systems shows that 10 year old fields have not required any additional sand to be added to the field.

 

29

How often is the sand to be replaced?

Evidence from similar systems shows that 10 year old fields have not required any additional sand to be added to the field.

 

30

Syn

Are there any 4G pitch in Australia?

How can we independently verify or validate the performance of the pitch if there are none of these pitches in Australia?

How many sports fields is 4G installed at in Australia under similar conditions to BCO - sea level, sheltered, humid.

The leading producers of 4g synthetic surfaces acknowledge that they are still currently developing the technology to get accreditation from FIFA and other sporting bodies. BCO would be the first ground in Australia, and maybe even in Asia, to use this technology.

Why is Lane Cove Council committing over $3 million to this unproven synthetic surface when there are so many questions with regard to cost, maintenance and suitability to the Australian conditions?

Smart Connection advise:-

There are no full size 4G football fields in Australia. However, there are 400 around the world including in hot climates such as Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Kenya

To test out the technology, 10 years ago the supplier installed a similar no-infill field in a 5-a-side-football facility. It has proven to be more durable than the adjacent 3G fields that were installed at the same time.

Similar technology has been used in synthetic fields for bowls and hockey for many years.

Bob Campbell Oval will be the first to use it for a full-size football field in Australia.

 

31

What are the wear characteristics of 4G?  Do you have any evidence?

 

The supplier has tested the technology and as the surface has no performance infill material, it tends to last longer than fields with a performance infill.

Regular grooming maintains the surface.

 

32

Syn

What measures are proposed in synthetic turf to mitigate for the absence of performance Infill? 

The no-infill system is designed to meet the same performance standards as an infill design.

The design uses multiple yarn shapes that provide the cushioning that the performance infill does in a 3G systems.

 

33

Syn

In the first instance I refer to the following published academic article and I urge you to look at it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544152/

This article concludes "After conversion to artificial turf, there was a significant increase in the incidence of upper extremity trauma. After the refurbishing with additional rubber chips, the incidence of lower extremity muscle strain significantly declined. "

It must be noted that this article indicates that exposure to injury can be reduced by the addition of extra rubber crumb.

It is also noted that the EU standard quoted by Council states this, on page 4

 Preview of Standard 17519- 2020 on Synthetic tu...

Smart Connection advise:-

This article concludes "After conversion to artificial turf, there was a significant increase in the incidence of upper extremity trauma. After the refurbishing with additional rubber chips, the incidence of lower extremity muscle strain significantly declined. “

• Not adequate information re synthetic field – not FIFA certified, shock pad etc

• Described turf as being 66mm (BIGTURF 66max) with 10mm rubber and 15mm sand = 25mm – should have been at least 44mm

• Ball bounce – in 2007 - 63.cm (FIFA 60-100cm) and then in 2013 was 75cm and reduced injury

• Indicators for lack of maintenance (ball bounce, infill levels and injuries) My summary of research findings is:

Increased injuries due to quality of product and continued maintenance

 

34

What cushioning for impact injuries is there with the 4G technology. What published research evidence is there to demonstrate that 4G will not increase impact injuries? (Noting that Council papers indicate that 4G has a sand base and so by deduction will not cushion impact as rubber crumb does).

Synthetic Fields utilise a shock pad beneath the synthetic grass to provide cushioning for falls. The combination of the grass and shock pad is then tested to ensure it meets FIFA standards.

Local Grass turf fields are not tested to determine if they meet FIFA standards.

35

Syn

How do you mitigate the heat impact, particularly in a period of increasing temperatures due to climate change?

 

The Blackman Park synthetic field has black rubber infill and there have been no complaints that it is too hot for users. The proposed design has no infill and will produce less heat than Blackman Park

 

36

Won’t heat impacts have an impact on the usage of the field to avoid heat stress on players?

Refer Q3.

 

37

I refer to the following recently published academic article and I urge you to look at it:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02656736.2019.1605096

This article highlights that "The impact of synthetic fields on increasing temperatures has been studied and it has been shown that synthetic fields can reach temperatures that are far in excess of natural turf fields. In some studies, the temperatures are high enough to cause acute skin burns (first to third degree) depending on the exposure duration. But also, these elevated temperatures can, in turn affect local air temperatures, essentially a localized ‘urban heat island’. Consequently, there can be risks to both athletes and spectators, especially those who may be more at risk to elevated temperatures."

From the published academic research, does 4G synthetic turf have different heat risks to 3G and to Natural Grass?

What are they?

How can these risks of heat injury be mitigated?

From the published academic research, does 4G synthetic turf have different heat risks to 3G and to Natural Grass? What are they? How can these risks of heat injury be mitigated?

What temperature will the surface rise to on a 30 degree C day - with no breeze?

 

Refer Q3.

 

38

Syn

Turf

Dr Battam: Council’s independent REF report says there are no leachates from the 4G synthetics.  Fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides, etc are used on grass fields.  Do you have any concerns in relation to these leachates?

How exactly are micro plastics and leachates removed from stormwater?

 

Smart Connection advise:-

SA TR CEN17519:2020 (2021) Technical Report Specification for Sports Areas – Synthetic Turf Sports Facilities – Guidance on how to minimise infill dispersion into the environment PLUS the Smart Guide 21-point test

With no rubber infill, this is addressed, BUT Council has gone further, with the design around the drainage and maintenance to reduce nano-plastic migration – world best

Due to the additional specified durability of the yarn, it is not expected to break down as other fields have

Council: There are specially designed grates at each gate that traps debris when people leave the field. The stormwater system incorporates a rain garden, bio-swale and in pit pollution control. All these measures are designed to remove pollution from the stormwater system.

 

39

Syn

Turf

What independent agency has provided verifiable data on the environmental promises of the product?

 

The Manufacturer has submitted a declaration that the product materials are compliant the with European Unions’,

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) The purpose of this regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. applies to community workplace and environmental legislation.

 

40

Are you aware that there are significant, documented scientific evidence of microplastic loss from synthetic pitches?

 

The no-infill design does not have any microplastic infill.

 

41

Syn

Turf

In the event that Council decides to proceed with synthetic, and later decides to pull the synthetic surface up, what is the process to rebuild the soil beneath the pitch to support a natural grass surface?

The synthetic turf system can be removed. Soil, drainage, irrigation and natural turf can then be installed.

 

42

Turf

Many sports, not just soccer, use synthetic fields.  For example, just about every tennis court is synthetic surface (but there is a lawn tennis club in Hunters Hill).
Why do you think people changed to synthetic for tennis play? 

Do you think they could change back to a natural compost surface?

 

 

43

How do natural pitches deal with bird, bat and other animal faeces (and the occasional errant dog) that are likely in this area?

Synthetic turf is groomed fortnightly which removes debris from the field. Dogs are not permitted on synthetic turf.

Turf is mowed regularly and dog owners are asked to pick up after their dogs. Holes caused by dogs digging are filled with soil during the season.

44

Turf

Confirm that the grass selected (Santa Ana couch) is dormant in winter and its growing seasons can support cricket and other sports.

 

AgEnviro advise that Santa Ana couch will likely be only growing at around 10% of its potential during the winter months due to the temperature which many greenkeepers refer to as “dormant”.

In spring/summer (when the field receives minimal shade) and autumn the temperatures are warmer and Santa Ana couch can grow rapidly, especially if the soil is fully amended.

Sports ENG Agronomist, advises, shade on the field will impact recovery of the grass for summer sport, particularly given reduced gaps between summer and winter sports.

45

Confirm that the level of direct sunlight is not a factor with dormant grasses or with the majority of drainage. If Council are asserting it is, please provide evidence of the correlation between lack of sunlight and patchy grass cover (or drainage).

 

Sport ENG Agronomist, advised that excess shade in winter increases likelihood of moisture, diseases, moss, algae and accelerated degradation.

46

Has there been an objective attempt to document the net community benefit of the synthetic surface versus the natural grass solution?

ie, the pros and cons of the long term environmental, social and economic effects of each alternative?

 

Refer Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021

The proposed natural turf option will increase capacity, however not to the same extent as is possible with synthetic. The intention of the upgrades is to maximise capacity as there is no option to provide new sports fields. Based on the 2018 NSROC Sportsground Strategy – “there is a need to increase the current supply capacity (fields) by around 26% to 2026”. Within the NSROC region, Lane Cove has the 2nd lowest number of sports fields per capita, exacerbating the need for additional capacity. Lane Cove’s population has increased by 19.4% since 2011 and based on DPIE population projections, a further increase in population of 10.6% by 2026 is forecast, after allowing for the impacts of COVID-19. This level of population growth and the growing demands for sport within the Lane Cove LGA generally, require the capacity of Bob Campbell Oval to be maximised and be more flexible for future users.

47

Can the workshop set out these pros and cons for distribution to the Greenwich Community and stakeholders?

Can there be a further period of at least 4 weeks to allow further submissions to Council on the net community benefit assessment provided in Item 2 before any decision is made re any contracts etc?.

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

48

What has happened to the lighting specification, which is not provided as appendix in the Specification, which states the below but provides nothing:

Nor is it provided anywhere else.

The tenderers received the lighting plans which included the specification for the design.

The tenderers received the lighting plans which included the specification for the design.

49

Why are there now 4 to 6 lighting poles when 4 were shown in public consultation?

There are four poles in the sports field lighting design.

There are four poles in the sports field lighting design.

50

Who is going to assess isolines and lux levels of Spill Light in Bushland and impact on wildlife?

The lighting design was assessed by Council’s lighting consultant - Lighting Art Science

The lighting design was assessed by Council’s lighting consultant - Lighting Art Science

51

Why are Shoe Grate Cleaners needed, (see p36 Specifications - Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Fields) given that 

These have been added to provide additional safeguards for the best environmental outcome possible.

 

52

Turf

Subsidence of surface - what has been the impact on the playing experience of the subsidence of the field surface? (Since Slot drainage system was installed, sand infill to slots has been washing into carpark/creek )

The drainage for the synthetic field does not allow water into the ground and incorporates sumps and bioswales to remove any particulate matter. There is no potential for materials to migrate via the drainage system to the surrounding watercourses.

The field is stable and there has been no major subsidence.  As slot drainage relies on drainage through soil layers anf/or can be directly washed off the surface , material can migrate to the surrounding watercourses.

53

Why does landscape drawings have T55 and other trees, in north of site, shown in the wrong place?

There are no trees to be removed at the northern end of the site.

 

54

Were Councillors made aware specifically, and when, of the enlargement of the project beyond what was shown in the December 2017 plan prepared by OSUS ? 

There has been no enlargement of the project. All works are within the current Bob Campbell Oval reserve.

 

55

The off-leash dog area was 980 sq m in the plan prepared by OSUS.  Who decided to increase it?

The Master Plan tries to maximise the dog off leash area within the available open space. It comprises a total of 4458sqm.

A permanent leash free are of 1886sqm can be provided at the northern end of the site.

56

What has been the default grass planted and replanted on BCO over the years?

 

Council has tried many types of turf. Over the last 4 years it has been Santa Anna Couch. Slit drainage and irrigation is installed, no attempt has been made to adjust the soil profile.

 

57

Confirm that with a natural grass pitch, and no fence, there is more room for the soccer field.

If you switch from a synthetic field to turf field in the approved Master Plan layout – there is no additional room for the football field. Refer Report to the Council Meeting of 19 July 2021 AT‑9

AgEnviro advise that there is capacity to move the field within existing boundaries. This could be achieved:

- without installing the perimeter walking track using the existing field dimensions bysliding the field up to 5 m south so it is 3 m from that fence, which will allow the field to also slide east.

- with the walking track there is far greater flexibility for rotating the field and the potential for trafficking the western side of the field (especially the sideline) is minimised.

Council: Options which involve rotating or moving the field would not make the perimeter walking track or amenities building in its proposed location possible.

58

For Natural turf, what bulk earthworks are suggested, or preferred, for the field?

Have such earthworks been considered by Council staff in their analysis. 

The current field is not level and to meet the FIFA Standards sections of the field need to be raised over 500mm.

If the turf option was pursued. In order to provide a level playing surface - sections of the oval would need to be raised by over 500mm.

59

There is confusion spreading in the community on what actually is proposed

The approved Master Plan is being delivered

 

60

Confirmation that the leash free area can be accessed even when games are played

With the synthetic option the field is separately fenced off so that the outer area is a permanent dog off leash area, which can occur while soccer is being played.

A separate fence around the field is not being suggested in a natural turf option. The outer area will not be available for a permanent dog off leash area, that can occur while soccer is being played.

61

The implications of the soccer field being smaller than standard

The proposed soccer field is 90m x 50m. This size field meets the standards for a full size field.

The proposed soccer field is 90m x 50m. This size field meets the standards for a full size field.

62

Turf

Dr Battam’s Plans:

The provided examples where natural returfing worked are not a direct comparison to BCO on account of lack of sun, wind.. Is there any other, more comparable, site where the plans worked?

Dr Battam’s Plans:

How would he presume the field would truly hold up under heavier use for organised sports than his existing examples, and under the current co-existence of sport and leash free dog area?

 

AgEnviro advises that the proposed solution can accommodate 43 hours p/w week of use can be supported

 

63

Turf

Dr Battam’s Plans:

How is his current recommendation differs from that of 2016 given to NAFC?

 

 

 

 

Middle Head Oval: Does the field allow dogs off leash?

N/A

No

64

Turf

Middle Head Oval: Is the field shaded by trees?

N/A

No

65

Turf

Middle Head Oval: The field is on a cliff top.  Does this help it to drain/not become waterlogged?

N/A

Yes, it has greater natural drainage and more airflow for drying.

66

Turf

Middle Head Oval: The field gets a lot of sun and breeze.  Does this assist against the field becoming waterlogged?

N/A

Yes

67

Turf

Middle Head Oval: Are there any other environmental factors that need to be considered when we compare Middle Head to BCO?  What’s your comment about the solar mapping comparisons?

N/A

AgEnviro advise the impact from shade on the performance of the field is minimal.

Sports ENG Agronomist advises, shade on the field will impact performance due to areas not drying out. This will impact wear and as Santa Anna is a summer grass, it is susceptible to disease.

68

Syn

Turf

Middle Head Oval: The field was reconstructed in 2018 and the report says (page 4) that the field subsequently “easily made it through the 2019 winter sports season despite receiving 49 hours/week of soccer/AFL usage” (not 55?).  How many hours/week of use would you have expected the field to be able to last in its first year post reconstruction?  And subsequent years?

N/A

Council: The AgEnviro report states that Middle Head Oval was completed prior to the 2019 winter sports season and it easily made it through that season with minimal wear.

Council’s own sports fields also managed to hold up well during the 2019 winter  which was the last year of an extended drought in NSW.  Between April and August 2019 weather data for Sydney’s Observatory Hill shows that the rainfall was 43% lower than the average rainfall.  This low rainfall reduces the impacts of weather on turf condition.

Both the 2020 and 2021 winter seasons have been affected by COVID lockdowns thus substantially reducing the hours of use for the oval.

 

69

Turf

Middle Head Oval: 2019 was its first season and both the subsequent 2020 and 2021 seasons were COVID-affected and so v short.  Yet this is described as an “excellent outcome”.  But given the reduced use, is the success of the field to date really a great predictor to its longer-term success or any guarantee of the durability of the new surface?  Can we get an idea of expected performance outcomes for Middle Head Oval vs BCO post reconstruction given the different usage and different eco-climates of the locations? 

The capacity of synthetic is unlimited, subject to when it is practical to use the field. Blackman Park B1 synthetic: 58.5 hours p/w. Weekend Play is booked by NSFA for a total of 22 hours per field.

Middle head has 17 hours (26%) of bookings for senior soccer. Junior AFL use is 30.5 hours per week (46.5%), the remainder of the hours are used by junior soccer, school groups and fitness training.

70

Turf

Middle Head Oval: Middle Head swaps the goal positions midway through the winter sport season and you have recommended a similar practice for BCO.  Given that cannot occur at BCO due to site constraints, how will this affect predicted outcomes?

N/A

Refer Q57

 

Capacity Usage

 

 

71

Turf

Dr Battam: This graph appears in your 2016 report commissioned by NSFA.  Can you explain what this is showing? 

 

The 2016 Graph shows up to 14 hours p/w week of equivalent adult soccer can be played and 20 hours of training can occur as high use. Beyond a total of 35 hours, the field experiences ‘intense’, the highest level of wear.

AgEnviro advises that the proposed solution can accommodate 45 hours p/w week of use can be supported with a further 15 hours of school play.

Sports ENG Agronomist advises that with full soil restructure, a maximum of 35 hours p/w week of equivalent adult soccer can can be supported with some turf damage in the goals and centre.

 

 

 

 

72

Turf

Dr Battam: Can you explain this graph, also from the 2016 NSFA-commissioned report?  What usage can we expect following your recommendations - is that shown by the unbroken line?  If not, where would that line sit on the graph?

 

 

Refer Q71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

73

Confirm that dogs and dog owners can continue to use the new natural pitch outside game and training periods?

Refer Q60

Refer Q60

74

Syn

Turf

Usage comparisons for synthetic verse grass. Grass report has 22 players on the field at any one time, whereas junior soccer 5-8-year old’s divides the field into 4. That’s 40+

Players plus parents etc is like 60 people per hour. Can grass cope with this?

Synthetic turf has unlimited capacity

 

Refer Q71

75

Comparing Blackman B1 to BCO grass what are the usage number difference? How many more games and people does B1 take compared to BCO? 

Blackman Park B1 synthetic: 58.5 hours per week with 13 bookings per week.

Note Weekend Play is booked by NSFA and games are schedule to accommodate the whole competition. Weekend play usage extends from 8am to 9pm Saturday (13hours) and 10am to 7pm (9 hours), a total of 22 hours per field.

Bob Campbell Oval currently has  25 hours per week with 7 bookings per week.

 

76

What’s clubs and schools use Blackman and BCO

Blackman Park: St Aloysius, Asquith Boys High, Marist College

 

Bob Campbell: Greenwich Public

Procurement

77

What are the formal qualifications and credentials of the tenderer and consultant providing information on the environmental impacts of their product?

 

The synthetic turf is manufactured by Greenfields, a global artificial grass company. Synergy Turf include the principal of the company that installed the Blackman Park synthetic fields.

 

78

Your web site says:

“that most of our artificial turf is manufactured right here in Australia with our factory conveniently located in Sydney”

The manufacturing process is overseen by our experienced staff who have also returned to join our business again, therefore together we can ensure the process is an overall success. We utilise only the highest standard yarn, primary backing and latex for our products, and conduct stringent quality checks throughout the processes.

Question

Do you own the manufacturing assets that make the synthetic turf products you sell?

Please clarify this aspect?

Question

What quality controls exist?

Refer Q77

 

79

Your web site says :

“With a proven track record of manufacturing, constructing and installing over 120 fields throughout Australia and New Zealand to the requirements of FIFA, World Rugby, FIH and AFL, Synergy is eminently qualified to assist Councils, Clubs, Schools and Universities in procuring a turn key sports field solution”.

All pictures/references on the website are 7 and 8 years old – but the company is only 2 years old.

Question

As you were only incorporated in July 2019 how has this been achieved?

 

Refer Q77

 

80

What is the net worth of Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd?

 

Council uses a special contractor to undertake a financial assessment of entities it contracts with and ensures appropriate contract conditions to mitigate financial risk.

 

81

Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd:

How many soccer pitches in 4 G have you installed using products your website suggest that you manufacture? Where and when?

 

Refer Q77

 

82

Have you any other recent local government clients using 4G? 

 

Refer Q77

 

83

Have Council officers conducted a full credit appraisal of it given that the 4G process is a first.  Ie if things go wrong what resources does the tenderer have to fall back on to meet its obligations?

Refer Q80

 

84

Are there any provisional sums in the contract?  - eg for earth works, geotechnic issues etc.

Yes, the only material provisional sum is the disposal of soil removed. The 15% contingency remains to cover such events.

 

85

Why is council so reluctant to giving due consideration and investigation into alternatives to synthetic turf?

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

86

Why is Council trying to award this contract for synthetic turf at BCO with such unseemly haste? And in the absence of an REF?  

Council has logistical issues to design, seek approval and secure materials to construct the field commencing at the conclusion of the Greenwich Games in December 2021.

Council has logistical issues to design, seek approval and secure materials to construct the field commencing at the conclusion of the Greenwich Games in December 2021.

87

What elements of the Masterplan will be foregone, or require additional funding, should the synthetic tender be accepted?

No adjustment to scope is proposed, Refer Q9

 

88

Why shouldn't the Council cease or pause the prosecution of a synthetic surface case and seriously address the natural grass alternative, potentially saving huge money and allowing beneficial elements of the Masterplan to be undertaken within the financial scope of the Grant?

Refer Q9

 

89

Is there a conflict of interest with the Council in pursuing a synthetic surface when the main supporting group is going to provide Council with $125,000 to help fund the proposal.

Local sporting groups often contribute to sporting infrastructure. As an example, Tantallon Oval Amenities block has had donations from the three local clubs that use that facility

 

90

When was the community publicly consulted about surface options for BCO, of synthetic turf versus natural turf ?

Council prepared a Draft Masterplan which included synthetic turf. Council received submissions both for and against the use of synthetic turf.

 

91

Did LCC have an intention of consulting on a natural turf option for BCO?

Refer Q90

 

92

Why did LCC not adapt to the changing information, and reconsider natural turf before this late stage, given that some of the FAQs, and assumptions about the proposal turned out to be wrong? (for example, geotechnical report results showed up the error of the statement that there was rock 

No material discoveries resulted in the need to change the Masterplan.

 

93

The 2020 BCO public consultation documents stated in FAQs that due to new lighting technology, the artificial lighting changes proposal   "...  will reduce light spill and the impact on wildlife" . 

This was a false claim, (the isolines in the Horizontal illuminance grid on Drawing CL-01 showed that the light spill in bushland was up to 20+ times higher in bushland reserve, than it was in the existing lighting comparison in CL-02).

Why has no new proposal for outdoor artificial lighting been exhibited? 

The lighting design has been refined to ensure there is less light spill.

 

94

How does LCC substantiate its News item on BCO , of 20 May 2021 headed: 

An Australian first!

 states that 

"The absence of performance infill removes the possibility of micro plastics migrating into the environment."

The absence of infill and a fully woven construction eliminates loose material that can migrate into the environment.

 

95

What costs were added by the requirement to work with the REF writer Applied Ecology to produce a satisfactory REF?

How is this not a conflict of interest to both those parties?

 

There is no Conflict of Interest between contractors.

 

96

Cricket Pitch -  what  has been the impact on the playing experience  due to the raised cricket pitch in the centre ? (pitch was reconstructed by LCC about 3 or so years ago, by raising well above the field and grading soil up to it) 

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

97

Can Council provide a literature review of the significant evidence that shared open, natural spaces are critical for the mental well-being of community.

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

98

Are there any Provisional Sums in the Tender Price? If so, what is their amount and does the Tenderer offer any cap to them?

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

99

What are the exclusions within the tender price?

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

100

Can we receive an analysis of the apportionment of Risk under the tender documents submitted by the winning tenderer and their inclusion in the proposed final contract?

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

101

Is there an early works or upfront supply component to the contract, prior to works physically starting on site? If yes, for what and how much is this cost?

No

 

102

How much did the passing on of these risks add to the tender price?

 a) ACID SULPHATES AND ELEVATED PH LEVELS 

b) EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE COMPROMISED OF POORLY COMPACTED ORGANICS. MAKE INCLUDE ALLOWANCES FOR LIGHT VEHICLE TRAFFIC ONLY.

These costs are not material and are the same for turf or synthetic

These costs are not material and are the same for turf or synthetic

103

Did the tenderers submit a trades breakdown?

What is the impact on the synthetic tenderer's cost for them to confirm the accuracy of the Geotechnical information, as outlined on p14 Specifications - Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Fields, extracted here:

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

104

The process

- the original decision to put synthetic on BCO in 2018

- community consultation vows

Beyond the scope of the Workshop process

 

Other Matters

 

Drainage

The stormwater system in the car park consists of several concrete pipes of various sizes. The carpark will have a grated pit to collect surface water from the reserve. The sports field drainage will drain into this system and be discharged into the creek.

If the outlet in the creek is submerged during a high tide, stormwater will back up and surcharge from a pit located just before the outlet pipe. This pit is located within a raingarden which will capture and discharge the water into the ground, any over flow will drain into the car park and then back into the creek. The sports field level has been designed to be above these flood levels.

 

 

Contract conditions to allow for adjustment or cancellation in relation to the State Government’s review of synthetic fields

Clause 66.1 of the contract provides:-

NSW Government’s Review of Synthetic Turf Sports Fields:

The Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the Principal may at any time on reasonable notice to the Contractor amend the Specifications for the supply of any synthetic turf system or terminate the contract completely in accordance with this clause, if required in order for the Principal to be able to comply with the outcome of the Review.

 

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2

CV John Neylan - Sports Eng

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


ATTACHMENT 3

REPORT to 19 July Council Meeting - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval

 

Subject:          Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and landscape works - Bob Campbell Oval    

Record No:    SU8412 - 42304/21

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Helen Haigh; Ted Webster; Martin Terescenko 

 

 

Executive Summary

Council called for tenders in accordance with Councils Tender and Quotation Procedure for the Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval of Lane Cove, Greenwich. The Request for Tenders to procure this work was made via TenderLink on 24 May 2021 and closed on 28 June 2021. Council received three conforming submissions and Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd are the preferred tenderer. The report also provides an update on the approval process for the works, and measures included in the design to minimise the project’s impact on the environment.

Background

Council at its meeting of 16 November 2020 adopted the Bob Campbell Oval Masterplan. Procurement for implementation of the Master Plan has been divided in to four stages, with all works to be completed by the end of 2022:-

·          Stage 1 - Construction and installation of synthetic sports field, associated infrastructure, and surrounding pathways and landscaping. 

·          Stage 2 – Shared User Path (SUP) providing safe pedestrian and cycle access to the oval from Greenwich Road.

·          Stage 3 – Construction of Amenities Block and Car Park

·          Stage 4 –Works for a new playground and foreshore area.

 

This report outlines the procurement process for Stage 1.

 

Discussion

 

Tender Process

 

A tender specification was prepared for Stage 1, detailing the schedule of work, hours of work, safety requirements and reporting requirements.  Council advertised the tender through TenderLink and on Councils website. Tenders closed at 5pm on Monday, 28 June 2021 and Council received three conforming submissions.  The request for tender called for suitably qualified and experienced contractors/suppliers for the construction and installation of synthetic sports field and associated infrastructure including drainage, lighting to sports field and surrounding pathways, perimeter path to the sports field, perimeter fencing to the park, perimeter circulation path, electrical, plumbing and sewer services

 

The specification outlined that the tender submissions would be assessed based on the following weighted criteria: -


 

Criteria 1:       Price

Weighting:       25%

 

Based on the Tender Price and schedule of rates provided in the mandatory schedules.

The bids were scored based on a pro rata difference in prices submitted, with the lowest price receiving 25 points. 

 

Criteria 2:                   Capability and Capacity

Weighting:                   25%

 

Capability & Capacity Assessment refers to the experience of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervision, the experience of any sub-contractors to be used, the capability of the tenderer to work within relevant policy frameworks and applicable legislation, and any initiatives for change and improvement. 

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have  past record and/or demonstrated ability to provide goods/services, technical expertise; resource and financial management skills including, proposed methods of service delivery/ detailed management systems, demonstrated continuous improvement practices,

Criteria 3:                   Experience

Weighting:                   20%

 

Refers to the demonstrated ability of the tenderer and its personnel, including management and supervisors and the experience of any sub-contractors to be used. 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to have provided the relevant experience of the Respondent and key personnel and the extent of skills/qualifications of the people who will be engaged to carry out the contractor's obligations under the Contract, structure of the Organisation, Contracts of similar nature with other NSW Councils.

Demonstrated financial capability to provide the Work/Services at both a financial and operational level with a clearly identifiable management structure, experience of Sub-Contractors, referees responses.

Simply providing a list of qualifications / certifications will not be accepted as experience relation to a particular area of work

 

Criteria 4:       Availability and Starting Time / Program:

Weighting:                   10%

Availability and Starting Time / Program refers to the timeliness of supply of Work. 

 

To achieve the maximum score a program must be provided showing the earliest start date, the order in which the Work is intended to be carried out, the estimated time to complete each element, significant milestones and hold points for the Work, show lead times for items which will require to be ordered more than one week in advance of being required, time for obtaining approvals / registration (where required) etc. The timeline must provide sufficient detail in order to assess the Work which is planned to be carried out Tenderers should be aware that following the award minor alterations to the submitted program may be requested by Council.

 

Criteria 5: Risk Management, Workplace Health and Safety and Environmental Factors

Weighting:                   15%

 

Risk management and Workplace Health and Safety refers to the tenderer’s commitment to and compliance with the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000 and Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001.

 

To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to  and will be assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules

 

Sustainability and Environment Assessment refers to the manner in which environmental issues are to be appropriately addressed, including commitment to due diligence and the principles of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) in regard to environmental legislation and documentation outlining past performance in regard to environment protection and enhancement initiatives.

 

            To achieve the maximum score the tenderer is to assessed based on completed applicable Returnable Schedules

Criteria 6: Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties provided.

Weighting:                   10%

            Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties relates to the provision of these Returnables in the submission.

Tender Evaluation

The three submissions were assessed and evaluated by the following panel members, comprising relevant staff from Council and an expert consultant. The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) consisted of;

Martin Sheppard – (expert consultant - non-scoring member)

Martin Terescenko (TEP Chair) – Executive Manager – Open Space and Urban Services (scoring member)

Ted Webster - Manager – Open Space (scoring member)

Alex Cuthbertson – Manager - Facilities (scoring member)

The TEP’s Report is Confidential and has been circulated separately to all Councilors. In summary the assessment of the tenders was as follows.

 

Company

Price (25%)

Capacity & Capability

(25%)

Experience (20%)

Availability and Starting Time / Program (5%)

Risk Management, Workplace Health and Safety and Environmental Factors

 (15%)

Product Technical Information and Details, Maintenance Services and Warranties provided. (10%)

 

 

Rank

Greenplay Australia

Pty Ltd

Preferred

 

 

Equally preferred

 

 

3

Polytan Asia Pacific

Pty Ltd

 

 

 

Equally preferred

 

 

2

Synergy Turf

Manufacturing Pty Ltd

 

Preferred

Preferred

Equally preferred

Preferred

Preferred

Preferred


Funding

 

Council received a Precinct Support Scheme Grant from the DPIE to the value of $3,623,023 to deliver the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan. $3,091,448 of this grant is for the delivery of the synthetic oval, surrounding park infrastructure, amenities building and car park. The successful tenderers price for the synthetic oval and surrounding park infrastructure is $3,293,692.33. The main reason for the cost increase over the original estimates provided in the grant submission are that the grant submission estimates were undertaken in 2018 by an experienced industry consultant. Since that time there has been cost escalation above inflation and a newer generation 4G synthetic grass system is proposed, which was not included in the original estimates.

 

Given the considerable research and innovation proposed in the project to date, there are, and will be learnings for the local government sector which will require monitoring, testing and documenting. Council also has identified the opportunity to work with universities and industry to develop end-of-life opportunities for the recycled material.

 

Given the above, Council has had preliminary discussions with DPIE to provider more grant funding and they have indicated Council will need to formally request same for consideration. The NSFA have indicated that they will contribute a minimum of $125k to the project and will finalise their level of contribution in the coming weeks.

 

If the DPIE is unable to provide additional funding then Council can ask the DPIE whether the scope of the grant can be reduced. The remaining works would be funded through Council’s annual Capital Works Program in the same way that Council is funding the playground and foreshore area of the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan. This program includes a park amenities improvements program which has seen upgrades to the amenities buildings at Blackman Park, Helen Street Reserve and in part Kingsford Smith Oval and the facility currently under construction at Tantallon Oval.

 

Approval Process for the Works

 

The approval process for infrastructure projects on Council property is governed by the State Environmental Planning Policy Infrastructure (SEPP). For the Bob Campbell Oval Master Plan the SEPP states that the approval process for this project requires a Part 5 Assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to be undertaken which in turn requires a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the project. Examples of other recent projects undertaken using this process are The Canopy park components, Tantallon Oval Amenities Building, Blackman Park Amenities Building Upgrade (also for the original synthetic field project) and Traffic Lights at Burns Bay Road and River Road.

 

On 25 May 2021 Council completed the Part 5 Assessment process and issued an approval for the works.  Subsequently, Council's attention was drawn to the REF's requirement for a Remediation Action Plan (RAP) to be developed for consideration as part of the Part 5 Assessment. This RAP was not produced but was scheduled to be prepared prior to commencement of construction. On this basis for avoidance of doubt in process, Council has revoked the Part 5 Approval ​and will prepare a RAP and review the original REF, prior to making a fresh decision on the matter.

 

The contract documentation for the project will, like the Design and Construct process used for The Canopy, require further design refinement and the contractor submitting information for the Part 5 Assessment process.

 

Prior to the assessment process Council will also engage an Environmental Consultant to undertake a review of the REF to ensure that all issues have been appropriately addressed and whether any additional measures are appropriate to minimise any potential environmental impact, including in relation to the following matters.

Lighting

Currently, Bob Campbell Oval is illuminated by four light poles. Based on the information the consultant Zumbotel and Lighting, Art and Science (LAS) provided, the existing lighting scheme does not adhere to the recommended Australian standards. Results of initial testing are shown on LAS Obtrusive Lighting Assessment – drawing number CL-02 dated August 2020 where the exiting lighting failed numerous illuminance and luminosity tests, including light spill into adjacent bushland in certain areas.

 

Zumbotel provided the initial concept lighting design for Bob Campbell Oval in August 2020. Their concept drawings were then analysed and adapted by LAS in their Obtrusive Lighting Assessment. Both of these documents were provided to the public throughout the consultation phase. Upon reviewing these documents while developing the draft REF it was clear that more design action could be undertaken to further reduce the light spill from the field to reduce the impact on surrounding bushland and neighbours of the site.

 

Council then engaged LAS to provide a revised design that also allows the lighting levels to be adjusted to suit both play and training. With this flexibility, in addition to controlling the lighting lux levels, the lighting spread can be adjusted to fall further within the fence line, further reducing light spill into the surrounding bushland. The Australian Standard (AS 2560) for sports lighting recommends that the minimum lighting required for sports fields ranges from 50 to 100 lux. Council proposes 50 lux will predominately be used for training purposes and 100lux would only be used for evening games. As a result, the following operational measures will apply to Bob Campbell Oval:

 

·          The use of part-night lighting (PNL), dimming, directed lighting, and motion-sensitive lighting on carpark lights and amenities building that may have more beneficial consequences for light-averse species.

·          Retain the existing hours of illuminance to no later than 9pm.

·          Reduce the area of lighting for training at the edges of the field to reduce light spill.

·          Field lights to be turned off when not in use.

 

Water quality, in-fill and leachates

There has been much concern in the community about microplastics and the risk to the environment, in particular the waterways.

The new 4G synthetic field systems further improve the environmental performance of synthetic turf in this regard.  Council therefore chose to utilise a 4G system, because it has no loose performance infill product. Utilising this product eliminates leachates from crumb rubber as there is none of this material present.

The recommended product is a fully woven grass which has tuft lock to also significantly reduce the migration of particulates (including microplastics) from the field. Further to this, as an additional precaution, all drainage pits have sumps to remove particulates and mats are provided at the entrances to remove any fibres in case a grass fibre does become loose.

This decision to use this superior product occurred during the preparation of the REF. The REF does not always reflect the decision to use 4G synthetic turf with no infill. As an example, in section 12.3.5 it uses the term leachates, referring to leachate from crumb rubber, which no longer applies. Also in the Summary, crumb rubber is referenced as if it is part of the project by reference to scientific research papers relating to car tyres and rubber.  The reference to leachates in this context is only relevant in that they provide information about background impacts from the upstream catchment.  The REF is now supplemented with a report (AT-1) that notes leachates have been further addressed through the Standard for Synthetic turf and a compliance statement for the manufacture of synthetic fibre supplied by the preferred tenderer.

In summary the documents provide evidence that the plastic used for the field does not leach into the environment.  This is consistent with the requirement of the European REACH Regulations developed by the European Chemicals Agency designed to ensure plastics do not have serious effects on human health and the environment (REACH stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). This will be updated in the REF prior to any further Part 5 assessment.

Further modelling to include the synthetic field area has been carried out by Council engineers using MUSIC modelling (software used to model stormwater pollutants) when assessing the Swale and Raingarden.  Water flow, suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen and gross pollutants are greatly reduced for the proposed synthetic field compared to a natural grass field.

Geotechnical and Soil Contamination

The site is generally filled with natural materials from the site and therefore the presence of contaminants is minimal. All sites have matters to be addressed, in this case the main issue is the presence of a small area of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and potential for Acid Sulphate soils. A Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be developed before the Part 5 Application is reassessed. The RAP will outline the measures to remediate and validate the site. A project Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) will consider the findings of the following project plans; Acid sulphate soil management plan (ASSMP); Remediation Action Plan (RAP); Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP); and include appropriate hold points for further geotechnical assessment.

Zoning

Concern has been raised about the zoning of the northern end of the proposed Master Plan as it is mapped as an E2 Zone in the LEP. The Infrastructure SEPP does not consider zoning, while the REF has regard to the proposed use. The specific area in question at AT – 2, shows the area identified currently used for a playground with picnic settings in a grass area, rather than Bushland. The 1943 aerial photo (AT - 2), shows no bushland in this area from at least this period. The space has been used as a recreation space, is currently an approved off-leash dog area and the Master Plan does not propose to increase the footprint of the recreation space, nor does it propose the removal of any trees in this area.

 

The actual E2 Zone boundary in this location will be investigated as there is a discrepancy when it is ground truthed on site. Such discrepancies have been highlighted since Council's original hand-drawn zone boundaries were converted to digital format and overlaid on aerial photos. Other similar instances of this have been recognised as a broader issue by Council and will be investigated.

 

Mitigation Measures Generally

 

Council will implement the following environmental protections and mitigation measures during the project.

 

Design measures

·          Removal of performance in-fill has negated the potential negative impact of rubber tyre leachates and reduces the heat island effect, as black rubber is a significant contributor to heat retention.

·          Fully woven synthetic turf system selected to ensure retention of plastic fibres to stop migration of particulates.

·          Synthetic turf utilising a single polymer that is 100% recyclable at end of life.

·          Stormwater Management Plan addressing overland water flows and includes Water Sensitive Urban Design measures (bio retention swale, raingardens), decontamination mats at gate entrances, pollution traps (sumps) in the drainage system to remove any particulates and ongoing monitoring.

·          Revised LED Lighting Design greatly reduces light spill to bushland and allows Council to have control over the light levels and areas illuminated.

·          Levelling of the sports field and level transition with surrounds to ensure fully accessible access to the oval

Construction measures

·          CEMP to incorporate findings from the RAP, SWMP, ASSMP and Blue Book, including hold points for geotechnical assessment

·          Implement all actions in the RAP, SWMP contained in the CEMP as and when required

·          Sediment control measures during the construction period

·          Implement the Tree Protection Plan

·          Contamination protocols

·          Eliminate or reduce impact of dust and noise pollution

·          Reduce impact of construction traffic by maintaining movements within work hours, not obstructing roadways and following a Traffic Management Plan

·          Pedestrian access across the field, to the foreshore and private residences will be maintained during construction.

·          Maintain visual amenity by stockpiling in designated areas and restoring areas as work is completed

·          No aboriginal heritage items are within the construction area. If they are discovered all works will stop.

Operational measures

·          Implement annual water quality monitoring after the installation.

·          Maintain safe access along roadways and Shared User Path

·          Visual amenity will change due to surface changes – schedule maintenance to keep area tidy, dispose of waste appropriately.

·          Follow synthetic turf best practice maintenance and monitoring for wear.

·          Replace turf at end of life and recycle following best practice

·          Lighting operational measures:

o    The use of part-night lighting (PNL), dimming, directed lighting, and motion-sensitive lighting on carpark lights and amenities building that may have more beneficial consequences for light-averse species.

o    Retain the existing hours of illuminance to no later than 9pm.

o    Reduce the area of lighting for training at the edges of the field to reduce light spill.

o    Field lights to be turned off when not in use.

 

Option for a Natural Grass Field

 

On Monday 12 July 2021, Council was provided with a report, refer AT 4, prepared by Dr Mick Battam of AgEnviro Solutions proposing a Natural Grass field in lieu of a Synthetic Field.

 

The NSFA commissioned a report in respect of Bob Campbell Oval by the same company in 2016 to upgrade natural turf field to meet the current usage levels at the time. The current proposal is similar to that previous version, using Santa Anna Couch as the turf cultivar with improved drainage, irrigation and maintenance techniques, including periodically relocating the field (rotation).

 

Staff have had limited time to evaluate the report, however as it is essentially the same as previous, with the techniques understood by staff. Council’s recent upgrades (2018) to fields 3 and 4 at Blackman Park involved similar works, including the same turf, but did not include compost.  Staff have, as per Council’s previous resolutions also discussed his solution with Dr Battam. It is noted, however that:-

·          the previous report recommended the use of Rye Grass to replace bare patches, which the current report rejects strongly,

·          The use of compost provides increased nutrients for the turf but retains moisture, which impacts surface moisture levels (discussed later in the report) and

·          requires invasive kikuyu grass to be manually removed 2-3 times per year;

The Santa Anna Couch essentially performs well on sportsfields during winter because, although the leaves brown off and leaf coverage is reduced (with reduced aesthetics), the thatch remains with a strong root system which works to reduce bare patches.

 

A key aspect to winter wear is drainage and the ability for the field to dry out to maintain surface quality. The proposed use of compost in the soil layers will retain additional moisture.  In order for wear to be minimised in terms of excessive moisture, the field needs access to sunlight. The examples provided do not experience the level of shadowing that Bob Campbell Oval does. To provide a comparison Council has prepared aerial photos of Bob Campbell Oval on 26 June 2021, refer AT 5, which shows how some parts of the field receive no sunlight at all.

 

The Sunspot Solar Mapping website provides an independent tool to show the amount a sunlight an area receives to assist the public in seeing how much sunlight their property receives for solar panel design. This site was used to analyse Bob Campbell Oval. The tool shows that in winter only one third of the oval is red (highest available sunlight) and the remainder of the oval is shown as orange or yellow. The Solar Mapping tool states that in winter the red areas have approximately 2.0 hours of sunlight a day while the orange and yellow areas have 1.6 hours and 1.1 hours per day respectively.

 

When using the Solar Mapping tool to compare the available sun light to the other two ovals mentioned in the AgEnviro Report it shows that both the Middle Harbour Oval and Renown Park fields receive the maximum sunlight available, refer AT 6.

 

Dr Battams report acknowledges this issue in this report “Although the turf requires minimal light when dormant, it is beneficial for drying out the surface. “He does not quantify the impact but it is unrealistic to expect that a field will dry out effectively without access to sunlight during the winter months and therefore surface quality is expected to deteriorate in areas. This is evidenced in an aerial photo of Renown Oval, which is the top left show a high wear area, refer AT 7.

 

It is also noted that Middle Head is located at the top of a hill and therefore benefits from greater exposure to wind, which increases evaporation to dry the field out quicker and good natural drainage with underground seepage moving away from the oval.

 

Unlike Bob Campbell Oval, none of the example ovals permit off leash dog use which has significant impacts on surface condition. Off leash dog use leads to greater intensity in usage by dogs than those fields which only permit on-lead access. Council’s own experience is that for ovals such as Kingsford Smith Oval where Council seeks to maintain a higher quality of field, dog digging and urine burn impact grass quality and ultimately lead to dirt areas where patching is required. Unfortunately, patching is difficult to achieve during Winter as turf is essentially dormant. As an example of scale, Council in June/July this year used two tonnes of soil to fill holes at Bob Campbell Oval created by dogs, with no turf replaced.

 

The new Battam Report includes some commentary on potential carrying capacity of the field once the new solution is implemented.  Council has contacted Mosman Council to discuss the Middle Harbour Oval. While the oval does have bookings for up to 65 hours (10 hours is group fitness) since the upgrade was completed the oval has not been fully tested for an entire winter season. The renovation was completed prior to the 2018 winter season which was relatively dry and mild and the 2020 and 2021 seasons have both been interrupted by COVID. For the 2021 season the oval was beginning to show signs of wear but the recent COVID lockdown has allowed the field to begin to recover. An inspection of the field was carried out by Lane Cove Council staff, which confirmed the current condition of the field is showing signs of high wear, refer AT 8.

 

Furthermore, the use breakdown of the Middle Harbour Oval shows that it is not directly comparable to the amount of use Council expects a synthetic field to accommodate. While it does have 65 hours of winter bookings per week, only 17 hours (26%) of these bookings are for senior soccer. Junior AFL use is 30.5 hours per week (46.5%), the remainder of the hours are used by junior soccer, school groups and fitness training.

 

Bob Campbell is currently 100% used for football other than weekday school use which causes minimal wear as the primary aged school children wear joggers. The field wear pattern of AFL varies considerably compared to football, as the games have very different patterns of play. Football is played in the middle of the field, which is demonstrated in Dr Battam’s original report in the following graph with the varying wear rates.

 

Source AgEnviro Solutions - Northern Suburbs Football Association: Playing field assessments August 2016

 

The weather, age/weight and general activity of players (Football has more changes of direction, twisting which rips the turf) also impacts wear rates. This is evident by Council having to regularly returf Football fields but not Tantallon Oval which is used for Rugby. Returfing is also highlighted as a requirement in Dr Battam’s new report, including every year (mid-season preferably) shifting the playing surface up to 5 metres to allow the field to recover from wear. It is noted that such an arrangement is not possible because of the constraints of the site and would mean the perimeter fitness track in the Masterplan is not possible, refer AT 9.

 

It is acknowledged that despite synthetic fields having an unlimited capacity, ultimately there are only certain hours where there is demand. The Blackman Park Synthetic fields regularly exceed 55 hours use per week during winter, and weekend play usage extends from 8am to 9pm Saturday (13hours) and 10am to 7pm (9 hours), a total of 22 hours per field. In total, each field is used for 30 hours of adult sport per week, training and games. This equates to nearly double the total adult sport use for football at Middle Head, 17 hours (8 hours training and 9 hours of games). The usage of Middle Head is not comparable to the level of use contemplated in the future for Bob Campbell Oval.

 

The proposed natural turf option will increase capacity, however not to the same extent as is possible with synthetic. The intention of the upgrades is to maximise capacity as there is no option to provide new sports fields. Based on the 2018 NSROC Sportsground Strategy – “there is a need to increase the current supply capacity (fields) by around 26% to 2026”. Within the NSROC region, Lane Cove has the 2nd lowest number of sportsfields per capita, exacerbating the need for additional capacity. Lane Cove’s population has increased by 19.4% since 2011 and based on DPIE population projections, a further increase in population of 10.6% by 2026 is forecast, after allowing for the impacts of COVID-19. This level of population growth and the growing demands for sport within the Lane Cove LGA generally, require the capacity of Bob Campbell Oval to be maximised and be more flexible for future users.

 

Conclusion

 

Having recorded the highest score across the weighted criteria and received positive reference checks about the quality and reliability of their work, the Tender Panel recommends that the tender from Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd be accepted for the provision of Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval.

 

Given the considerable research and innovation proposed in the project to date, the result will be the nation’s most environmentally sensitive synthetic playing field. There are, and will be, learnings for the local government sector which will require monitoring, testing, evaluation and documenting as a case study. Council also has identified the opportunity to work with universities and industry to develop end-of-life opportunities for the recycled material.

 

Council will engage suitably qualified contractors to provide a RAP and undertake a review of the current REF and update where necessary. Once these tasks are complete, a new Part 5 Assessment will be undertaken and if approved, works will commence onsite after the Greenwich Games in December 2021.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That:-

1.         The tender for the provision of Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and associated infrastructure at Bob Campbell Oval be awarded to Synergy Turf Manufacturing Pty Ltd for an amount of $3,293,692.33 ex GST;

2.         The General Manager enter into contract for the work, such contract to ensure Council has no obligation to proceed should the future Part 5 assessment not result in approval of the project;

3.         Council request the DPIE to consider provision of additional funding of $500,000 to cover the additional cost of the project due to inflationary cost escalation and innovations to create the nation’s most environmentally sensitive synthetic playing field;  and

4.         In the event DPIE and NSFA funding does not cover the full cost of the project, Council fund the balance of the project in the 2022/23 Budget under its Capital Works Program.

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

ATTACHMENTS:

AT‑1 View

Letter from Applied Ecology

2 Pages

 

AT‑2 View

Zoning clarification images

3 Pages

 

AT‑3 View

REF mitigation measures table

6 Pages

 

AT‑4 View

Bob Campbell Oval - AgEnviro Solutions Natural Turf Option

25 Pages

Available Electronically

AT‑5 View

Bob Campbell Oval Aerial Photos Winter

2 Pages

 

AT‑6 View

Solar Mapping of Sports Fields

1 Page

 

AT‑7 View

Renown Oval Wear 1 September 2019

1 Page

 

AT‑8 View

Middle Harbour Oval Condition

1 Page

 

AT‑9 View

Review of Alternate Locations for Soccer Field

1 Page

 

 


Extraordinary Meeting of Council Meeting 02 August 2021

Addendum to Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval

 

 

Subject:          Addendum to Further Report - Tender for Construction and Installation of Synthetic Sports Field and Landscape Works - Bob Campbell Oval    

Record No:    SU8412 - 47697/21

Division:         Open Space and Urban Services Division

Author(s):      Martin Terescenko; Craig Wrightson 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

The original report to Council includes a summary of the additional cost for the project compared to the Grant Estimate. The calculation confused GST inclusive and GST exclusive amounts on various items. To simplify the comparison, an updated table is provided with all numbers compared on a GST exclusive basis. It is recommended the information be received and noted.

 

Discussion

 

 

Grant Synthetic

Tender

Turf 

Estimate

 

Inc GST

Ex GST

Ex GST

AgEnviro^

Sport Eng*

Excavation

 $ -

 

$ 365,365

 

$ 288,437

Masterplan Works - Field Excluded

 $ 483,670

 $ 439,700

 $1,236,742

 $1,236,741

 $1,236,741

Sports field Perimeter Fence

 $ 58,410

 $ 53,100

 $ 121,215

 $ -

 $ -

Installation

 $1,276,000

 $1,159,999

 $1,531,370

 $ 386,000

 $ 440,059

Maintenance 3 yrs

$ -

$ -

 $ 39,000

 $ 81,000

 $ 91,640

Subtotal Stage 1 Works

 $1,818,080

 $1,652,798

 $3,293,692

 $1,703,741

 $2,056,877

Preliminaries

 $ 85,800

 $ 78,000

 $ 78,000

 $ 78,000

 $ 78,000

Amenities

 $ 715,000

 $ 650,000

 $ 650,000

 $ 650,000

 $ 650,000

Contingency 15%

 $ 472,568

 $ 429,607

 $ 429,607

 $ 429,607

 $ 429,607

Shared User Path

 $ 531,575

 $ 483,252

 $ 483,252

 $ 483,252

 $ 483,252

Subtotal Stage 2 Works

 $1,804,943

 $1,640,858

 $1,640,858

 $1,640,858

 $1,640,858

 Inc GST

 $3,623,023

 

 

 

Exc GST

 

$3,293,657

 $4,934,550

 $3,344,600

 $3,697,736

Council (Funding) / Saving

 $ -

$ - 

($1,640,894)

 $50,943

 ($404,079)

 

^ All existing soil retained and improved, existing Irrigation retained, additional drainage provided

*Includes 250mm excavation, soil restructure, drainage and irrigation option recommended by Sports Eng, estimated by Council.

 

Conclusion

 

The information shows that Council would need to contribute $1,640,894 ex GST from s7.11 Developer Contributions  if no additional funding is available from DPIE or the NSFA.

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That the information be received and noted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Terescenko

Executive Manager - Open Space and Urban Services

Open Space and Urban Services Division

 

 

 

Craig Wrightson

General Manager

General Managers Unit

 

ATTACHMENTS:

There are no supporting documents for this report.