This is my first view of this opportunity so perhaps these comments are old hat.
Had this turf proposal been considered in conjunction with, or be able to be dovetailed into, the proposed "unique events and entertainment facility for Perth and...world-class sporting, entertainment and community precinct" redevelopment around Belmont Park?
From the Dave Lanfear consultants report - it appeared this location was not even tabled (other than Balbuk Reserve). Is this location privately held and/or have planning decisions already been made on the development of Belmont Park?
The location and concentration of multiple sports in this already designated location "Burswood Peninsula" makes sense to me.
The Taylor Reserve site borders the City of South Perth.
For a number of years the Wesley South Perth Hockey Club/South Perth Cricket club have had other competing community interests seeking encroachments into the Richardson Park playing fields. Namely, the proposed South Perth Rail station from the west and Zoo infrastructure expansion from the east.
If these other community interests were considered and Richardson Park sacrificed for their benefit, then an alternate location would be needed for the WASPs Hockey club and South Perth Cricket Club.
The grassed open space (largely unchanged) on the South Perth foreshore to the west of Ellam Street would be sufficient area for both hockey and cricket (and possibly both WASPs and Vic Park) at different times of year. All year usage.
Furthermore, a shared location and club facilities between Vic Park hockey, WASPs hockey and South Perth Cricket Club is likely to provide a maximised efficiency of use, cost sharing amongst clubs and councils, and a collaboration of two adjacent local governments with community facilities straddling the common boundary. If the Barnett council amalgamation had occurred, this would be the case anyway.
I note the consultants comments on this site "Passive and restricted recreation is considered appropriate for this reserve."
Four wheel drive, caravan, camping and horse riding shows are not particularly passive in my view.
Interestingly, Taylor Road Reserve is not connected to the Swan river, as commercial (government) buildings divide the river from the reserve anyway.
Just a couple of ideas for others to consider in this forum.
Dave Lanfear report investigates parks and reserves owned or in trust within
the Town borders. Alternative strategies are being investigated by Tina
Ackerman. This includes partnering opportunities with state departments,
neighbouring councils and private land owners.
Taylor Road Reserve is a location that has been identified by the community and included as a recommendation in the community engagement report.
Hi Your thoughts,
I have recently heard two things that concern me in relation to the, in my opinion, extremely poorly thought through idea of giving Harold Rossiter Reserve to the VicPark/Xavier old boys hockey. And I would like to seek some kind of clarification. Thanks in anticipation of your help. The two things I have heard are. First, in order that the proposed grass hockey fields are playable at Harold Rossiter. The amount of water that would be require to make them playable would change the level of the water table in the local area, such that contaminated water from the adjacent sand pit would leach into the water being used to irrigate the pitches,and surrounding reserve. The consequence of this would apparently be that the pitches would be considered unsafe for junior hockey. Presumably it would also be unsafe for non hockey playing children to use the pitches for anything else too. The second thing I have heard is that the Mayor thinks he has come up with some kind of brilliant compromise plan to put the artificial turf on Kent street High school's fields, with the grass pitches being put on Harold Rossiter. In the light of these two things that I have heard. I would like to ask. Can you please reassure me that those working at the council are doing their job with sufficient due diligence to make themselves aware of potentially serious issues relating to the concept of giving the Harold Rossiter reserve to the hockey club ? I would also like to make the following comments. 1. So far it appears to me that, rather than the hockey club approaching the council to ask the council to help them to explore sensible viable appropriate options for them to grow as a club, which I would personally be happy to support. The hockey club seems to have asked the council to give them Harold Rositter reserve, and the council has done everything it possibly can to simply give it to them, regardless of how poorly thought through that idea might be. 2. Should the Mayor proceed in pursuing a compromise idea to locate an artificial grass surface at Kent street high school, and give Harold Rossiter reserve over to grass hockey pitches. Only to find that he had granted the club the use of a facility that the club's future, namely it's junior teams, couldn't even use. He might just find that, in the face of the huge body of feedback and evidence that any promise to give Harold Rossiter to the hockey club, would be foolhardy. His Mayoral legacy might be that of being seen as some kind of incompetent laughing stock who had managed to sculpt a hugely expensive white elephant to rival the huge prawns bananas and rams seen around the country . Rather than as a person who the community in Victoria Park could consider to have been a wise and thoughtful champion of the Town.
Good morning Paul. Thank you for your questions. The information in your questions is incorrect. There has been no decision to relocate VPXHC to Harold Rossiter Reserve. The Town is investigating alternative location and strategies which they will present to council in October.
Could you please clarify what grade synthetic turf pith is being planned? There are comprehensive studies from hockey wa that show if the pitch is designed to be of first grade quality (clubs arguement they needed this to reduce losing players to other clubs), then using it for other sports cannot occur (the clubs lease plan to finance it)as it damages the quality down to a social grade level.
In addition, vic park is a location in proximity not only to curtin uni hockey but also too: aquinas (own artificial turf, Wesley (artificial turf) & trinity. All are huge hockey based schools
Offering substantial scholarships. Studies have been done on culture of hockey )I can provide on request) that club numbers decking given it's a 'tradition sport' kids play based on parents etc, then join the school clubs & transition to the prestigious university clubs where they remain. They return back to club based more at a veteran/retire
Level. Given this, can you please provide data that will back the arguement that this proposal will help retain players in the club & be financially viable for the club long term, given the locations being considered are up
Against all these already developed & well established schools/uni's? As opposed to considering sites with less demand eg Belmont, or in the sporting precinct of Burswood?
Thank you for your question.
No consideration has been given to the grade of
synthetic turf that will be provided as there has been no decision as to
whether the potential relocation of the club will be progressed to the next
phase. If Council determines that the project will progress to the next
phase detailed design work (including options regarding the grade of turf)
would be included in the scope of the project.
The Business Case, which
is available in the document library provides evidence regarding the financially viability of the
Club in the long term.
Hockey WA, who were
represented on the project team, provided advice in regards to declining
membership at clubs that do not have ready access to a synthetic turf. Please
contact Hockey WA directly if you require the data that supports this claim.
The VPXHC has provided
anecdotal evidence that indicates their declining membership numbers are due in
part to members moving to clubs that have ready access to a synthetic turf.
Hi Tina as you are aware I asked a question at the last council meeting,,,Are you going to sack your lead consultant,,, I understand this may not be in the best interest of the Council and VPXHC but it certainly is for the ToVP ratepayers. I refered to the consultant who at the third workshop explained to us the real reason we were there was to do with Harold Rossiter (backlash i suppose he didnt go into detail) when asked by John Mamo to rewind to a picture of Harold Rossiter and then when he did he was asked to show where the Kensington Bushland is,,,This is a protected very special piece of bush and enviromentaly sensitive,,,He admitted he didnt know after we all started to laugh when he pointed roughly to the sandpit,, at least he didnt pretend and then look like a complete fool,,,John Mamo who had asked him the question then asked how he could lead a team that scored Harold Rossiter on an enviromental level the same as other parks when he didnt even know where the Kensington Bushland is,,,, When I asked the question in Council meeting you answered that you had spoken with the consultant and he had told you he had misunderstood the question,,,I wasnt allowed to say anything back so was silenced but i had the chance to talk with you during the 15min break,, You said you had missed the whole thing and when you asked him about it after the workshop he told you he misunderstood the question,,, at the end of the night when he was going around asking people about their summary of the night I stated the highlight of the evening for me was when John asked him to recall the picture of Harold Rossiter and he could not show where the bushland was and he smiled sheepishly and agreed,,,,,Now how can he say he misunderstood the question,,,,If i ask a question of a consultant and he doesn't understand should he not say he cant quite understand the question and ask for a bit more explaination which we sure would have given him,,,
,My other question to you is why did you ask him about it if you didnt see it,,,,All the people on John Mamo's table saw it ,,I saw it , my mother was also a witness as was the lady sitting next to me,,,,its a bit hard to beleive he could not understand a simple question like that,, why would you have him running seminars if he cant understand simple questions,,how is he going to be with the hard ones,,it makes no sense,,,,Can you please confirm whether he knew where the Kensington Bushland was or is he still sticking to the story of not understanding a simple question,,
My second question to council was how many members of VPXHC are actual ratepayers of ToVP,, Stuart Lamont misquoted it at the workshop and said 45% of 600 members,,,I corrected him that these were approximates so he should say approximate,,,you also answered the question at the council meeeting with the same numbers and I had to correct you also that you should say approximate,,,,when can I expect an answer,,,I dont think I should have to state it but I want ToVP ratepayers only, not surrounding areas,,
Also why was the consultant not aware when he said we could have had someone there that we had asked and been refused for someone from the Harold Rossiter Adction Group to answer questions on behalf of the Action Group in a role exactly like Stuart Lamont was allowed to attend all three workshops,, Stuart stated no trees will be removed, can you give him that copy/paste answer you give me everytime about how no decision has been made to move it to Harold Rossiter Blah Blah Blah,,like when the Mayor said it at a council meeting which you agree is at the very least incorrect if not an outright lie,,,as stated earlier Stuart also misquoted numbers by not saying they were approximates
The consultant, who is aware of where the
Kensington Bushland is, raised the point while workshop participants were
working at their tables on the assessment exercise.
The report that is presented to Council in October will refer to the number of
Club members that are residents of the Town.
I have spoken with the project team and can confirm that the HRRCAG were not refused to attend the workshops as a representative. Participants who registered for two or more workshops were informed that they could only register for one workshop due to participant numbers.
The assessment of all 70 of the Town’s reserves was not included in the scope of the project undertaken by AECOM. As such the assessment undertaken by Dave Lanfear Consulting has been far more thorough then that undertaken by AECOM.,,,,,,ARE YOU SERIOUS,,, Do AECOM not know the boundaries of the Kensington Bushland either,,,,You can honestly state because he looked at more sites his report was more in depth,,,Dave Lanfear doesnt know where the boundaries are for Kensington Bushland ,,LET THAT SINK IN
Thank you for your statement Pat.
It was mentioned at community consultation Kent st high school being considered as a site.
Could you please clarify:
A) how is the community impact being studied with regards to noise/lighting for residents? Given it is still in a highly ur amused part of town
B) this would be again,another duplication of resources given Como shs just down the road is already established hockey specialist school. Can the town please confirm the REASON WHY Como has not yet been considered? I was told by a hockey player it was because the club may have to drop down to two grass pitches. I wish to have the reason verified because if this is the case then a complete duplication of resources where the school may not even get hockey numbers to cover this seems very very high risk with council/ratepayers having to cover the very likely chance of shortfall.
Thank you for your question. There is a number of conversations taking place to discuss alternative locations and strategies. There has been no decision to eliminate any stakeholders during these conversations.
Questions re OCM 11 July 2017:
1. OCM 11 July 2017 p.194 -what are the other users referred too? Will these users contribute to the capital set up costs?
2. OCM 11 July 2017 p.195 -reference to dwindling members of VPXHC. The business case infers the retiring members have joining clubs with astro turf. As there are very few clubs with astro-turf (refer Business Case Section 4.1) can the ToVP advise what the uplift has been in with club with astro turf. I seek to confirm that the VPXHC membership reduction is not merely reduced interest.
3. OCM 11 July 2017p.188-p.192: The proposed mitigation /actions are in many instances just prosed process. For instance, implementing a Community Plan will not solve ‘community outrage’. Can the ToVP please expand on these proposed mitigations?
4. What was the basis for the ToVP taking a divergent view to City of South Perth re this proposed development? (Business case Appendix A “...they did not feel the development of a facility of this nature was the role of local government, which should focus on greater/wider community access and programs.”).
5. Given the above How can ToVP explain the divergent view in the Business case “….to seek co shared funding from City of South Perth and others”).
6. Harold Rossiter: Can the ToVP please explain its rationale for displacing the Soccer Club in favour of VPXHC is the proposal goes ahead? Where would ToVP propose to relocate the Soccer Club? What is proposed for the Cricket Club?
Thank you for your questions Karen (via email 3/09/2017)
Extract From Minutes - This
entity would manage all aspects specific to the synthetic turf, including
invoicing all user groups (VPXHC included).
If the query is in reference to the sentence above that has been extracted from
the minutes, no, these user groups would not contribute to the capital set up
costs. The fees that they would be charged for the hire of the facility would
contribute to the maintenance, renewal and upgrade of the facility.
Hockey WA have advised that
all clubs with synthetic turfs have realised an increase in membership, with
some realising a significant increase e.g. Melville City Hockey Club. That
said, like all clubs, the Victoria Park Xavier Hockey Club’s declining
membership numbers will be impacted by people moving, quitting playing hockey
all together and various other reasons, including the lack of synthetic turf.
- Please advise which action/mitigation strategy you would like to know
more about. Alternatively, please call Tina Ackerman at the Town on 9311 8111
to discuss this further.
- The Town of Victoria Park has a role to play in supporting community
based sporting clubs, such as the hockey club. The Town is unable to comment on
the City of South Perth’s stance on this issue.
- This is a position encouraged by the Department of Local Government,
Sport and Cultural Industries, who contribute to community based sporting
- Currently there are seven soccer clubs in the Town, based at five
reserves. Co-locating clubs that play the same sport is manageable and more
- Hockey and cricket can be co-located.
At last night's Community Workshop the ToVP alluded to almost 10 other options currently being considered to meet the requirements of the VPXHC. This does call in to question the value of the Workshops to consider 4 specific sites when the ToVP is already considering other options, which the community is not privy too. However, when will these options be made open to the community and will the community be consulted?
At the 11 July
2017 Ordinary Council Meeting a recommendation to investigate alternative
locations and strategies was endorsed. This has been progressed in two phases:
Alternative locations on Town owned/managed reserves, which has been
the focus of the work being undertaken by Dave Lanfear Consulting.
Exploration of strategies to relocate the Club to a site that is not
owned or managed by the Town. All options that have been explored, even those
that no further consideration will be given to, will be referred to in the
report that is presented to Council.
If it is
considered that there are viable options that have been identified as part of
the two phase process any recommendation to Council would include reference to
the need for a thorough community engagement process.
1 The Dave Lanfear report scoring system gives different results to those described in the AECOM business case Please explain which results the ToVP considers now most relevant and which we should be using for consideration , especially given the variance between the two reports and previous ToVP statements.
2. The Dave Lanfear report overturns several of the premises which the ToVP had previously stated regarding the Astro turf and pitches solution. For example:
- McCullam Park is not viable, when previously the indication was that the site was being considered as an alternative.
- Raphael Park comes up to one of the top 4 possible sites, when previously it was scored as one of the lowest possible choices.
Can ToVP please explain this? Are we to now suppose that the ToVP does not place reliance on the AECOM business case report?
The assessment of
all 70 of the Town’s reserves was not included in the scope of the project
undertaken by AECOM. As such the assessment undertaken by Dave Lanfear
Consulting has been far more thorough then that undertaken by AECOM.
1. What are the professional credentials of Dave Lanfear Consulting?
2 What was the assessment process to choose Dave Lanfear for this engagement ? Why were AECOM not asked for further clarification instead?
Hi Karen. Please find the below the answers to your question.
Dave Lanfear credentials can be viewed on his website www.davelanfearconsulting.com.au
- The assessment was based on capacity, experience, understanding of scope of project, ability to meet deadline,
knowledge of the Town’s active and passive reserves.
Aecom were not asked for further clarification as this is a different project that undertook an assessment of all 70 reserves in the
Town, which was not in the scope of works of the project that AECOM were
engaged to undertake.