Proposed 50m pool and aquatic centre Cof Stirling

Special council meeting for residents tonight"

Proposed 50m Pool and Aquatic Centre - Hamersley

Hello all.

For some years now the City of Stirling has been considering building an Aquatic Centre in adjacent to the Hamersley Golf Course.

After many years and several reports into its cost and viability a recommendation will be put to the next Council meeting that the pool should not be built. There will be no pool built to service our local community and we will be required go to Challenge Stadium to use a 50m indoor pool.

Council has agreed to hold a meeting with residents on this coming Wednesday the 23rd February. This is the last chance for residents to give to Council a clear message that we want a pool in the area.

Lynley Papineau has been working tirelessly to gain the support of the Council for the Aquatic Centre. We have read the various reports and in summary the recommendation to Council not to proceed is based on the view that the money is better spent on other projects (in other parts of the City of Stirling) and that we don't require a pool (which is contrary to the findings of previous surveys).

The more people we can get to this meeting next Wednesday the stronger the message we can deliver to the Councillors that our community wants this Aquatic Centre.

So please come along and show your support - this is the last chance to have an Aquatic Centre in our community.

Not having gone to the meeting I probably dont have the right to ask ..... How was the turn out? I'm sick of hearing of development being prevented in Perth, what was the argument against a pool?

I have tried to make my record of the meeting as unbiased as possible.

The meeting was well supported by about 500 members of the public. Clearly those present were in support, apart from a few golfers (though there will be no reduction in the number of holes available at Hamersley GC both during construction and thereafter) and the golfers will be getting a $7m new club house and facilities as part of the proposal.

The other site that was supported by some of the attendees was the old tip next to the council chambers.

There is quite a bit of history to this proposal - 12 years ago, when the Scarborough High School was demolished, residents were promised that they would be compensated for their children having to travel further to school but the construction of a sports centre and aquatic centre on the site. In face the State Gov. would provide the land and some funding.

The C of Stirling objects to this promise, stating that it was a State Gov. promise, not there's. They state they only committed to consider it! I got a sense that there may be truth to this, though it's more semantics and certainly many of the older residents particularly affected by the Scar HS closure made this quite clear.

For clarification, a sports centre has been constructed on the site (part of the deal) however council has decided that the site is not suitable for an aquatic centre.

12 years and $200,000 on some 6 or so consultants reports later, all in favour of the development of a 50metre heated aquatic centre, and all recommending the Hamersley Gold Course site and despite the recommendations of all of the reports council is recommending not to proceed.

A lot of anger was displayed by residents who feel betrayed - not that it's not being built at Hamersley GC, but that it's not being built at all.

DL is right about the proximity of the coast being a big consideration. In fact, council argues that they pool would have a 5km radius catchment and that in fact half of that is in the ocean!

Significantly, a 25meter facility was costed at 25million while the 50metre facility was costed at 27million or $2million more. Of this 2million more, only about 1.5 million is construction costs - the balance was contingencies and overhead.

Criticism at the meeting was directed at the following points made by council
1. That a 50 meter indoor heated Aquatic Centre would have the same catchment as at 25meter indoor heated aquatic centre being 5km (despite the fact that Challenge, a regional facility, has a 20km catchment)
2. That the number of visits per user of the facility was 3.5 visits per annum (the lower end of the most recent consultant's report) despite the 2 previous consultants reports showing a usage per visitor of 4.5 and 5.5 visits per year respectively
3. That the Gross revenue for a 50m facility would be LESS than for a 25metre facility while the running costs are essentially similar.

The council's big points are that the facility is not financially viable and that the residents are adequately served by adjacent council facilities.

The resident's big points are that
1. They were promised a facility at Scarborough 12 years ago
2. The nearest facilities are located at Craigie, Bold Part, Joondalup and Inglewood - pretty much 30mins travel time each way to take your kids swimming after school for a 30min lesson if you are located at the western side of the city of Stirling
3. That it is unreasonable to conclude that a 50metre indoor heated facility would have the same catchment as a 25 meter facility and that it would earn less revenue
The City of Stirling's position is it currently has no position - it will receive and debate a recommendation by the Aquatic Centre committee to not proceed shortly.
The City of Stirling has no debt, and is very strong financially. I walked away with a sense that the council was against spending the money on a facility and was unlikely to change its view.

I guess on balance , the council while arguing that it has pre-recommitted to a range of other community infrastructure projects, did not address was these were, and may well be valid priorities.

That provides little comfort however for those residents who have been fighting for this for 12 years after the original commitments were made.

Thanks Lynley and amazing effort in getting this fired up!