Grampians Tourism Region Product and Infrastructure Audit

Kardinia Park Netball Complex Conceptual Design

July 2009 PROJECT DELIVERY PTY LTD ABN 48 102 819 750 C O N S U L T I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R S C O N T E N T S Page No.

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

2. BRIEF 7

3. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 13

4. ISSUES 15

4.1 Landscape Setting and Character 15 4.2 Number of Courts 16 4.3 Court Surface 16 4.4 Run off areas 18 4.5 Lighting 19 4.6 Town Planning 21 4.7 Drainage 21 4.8 Shelters 21 4.9 Show Court 22 4.10 Park Amenity 23

5. CULTURAL HERITAGE 24

5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage 24 5.2 Historical Sites 25 5.3 Statutory Requirements 25 5.4 Assessment 27

6. DESIGN METHODOLOGY 28

6.1 Environmentally Sustainable Design 28 6.2 Geotechnical Issues 28

7. CONCEPT DESIGN 29

7.1 Landscape Concept 30 7.2 Design Drawings 31

8. COST ESTIMATE 37

9. CONSULTATION 42

10 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS 45

11. RECOMMENDATIONS 47 REPORT APPENDICES 48

Appendix 1 – Comparison of Court Playing Surfaces 49 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

This report describes the Concept Design of the Kardinia Park Netball Complex.

The complex currently comprises 12 asphalt courts which are in poor to fair condition. The courts suffer from poor drainage and a surface shape that is too steep in some places, causing safety issues and too flat in other places, causing drainage issues.

The courts do not comply with Netball Victoria Safety Standards in relation to the width of run off areas.

Lighting of the courts does not meet Sport and Recreation Victoria Guidelines for training or competition activities.

The courts are used all year at night and on weekends by:  Geelong Unity Netball Association  Geelong Netball Association  St.Mary’s Football Netball Club and  Netball Geelong.

These organisations have been consulted during the design process as has Netball Victoria.

This report included a desk top survey of cultural heritage issues and historical issues and this survey concluded that no significant issues exist for this site.

Design

The design is required to address the deficiencies described above whilst generally staying within the existing paved footprint of the courts. This has been achieved by removing the centrally located shelters and placing new shelters on the outside of the courts.

Two options are presented and a cost estimate is presented for each. The cost estimates contain a 15% contingency amount but do not allow for GST.

12 Court Option

The 12 court option, at an estimated cost of $0.75M, provides:

 12 courts  asphalt overlay to all of the existing pavement, some improvement to the slope of the courts  lighting to meet standards  run off widths to meet standards  new shelters The existing steeply sloped drainage area which runs north south between the courts would be reshaped and provided with a n asphalt spoon drain. It must be noted however that this option simply lays a thin layer of asphalt over the existing surface. Hence the new surface would be subject to ongoing issues with tree root damage and ground movement. It would also have a surface shape containing most of the imperfections of the existing courts.

9 Court Option

The 9 court option, at an estimated cost of $1.41M, provides:

 9 courts, including a Show Court  all courts to be constructed with a reinforced concrete slab overlaid by coloured synthetic paving.  A concrete warm up and spectator area near the Show Court.  lighting to meet standards  run off widths to meet standards  new shelters  tiered seating at the Show Court

The shape of the courts would be constructed in accordance with best practice slopes and the concrete slab would resist damage by tree roots and ground movement. It is envisaged that subject to good maintenance this option would provide reliable service for several decades.

The recommendations of this report are set out below:

It is recommended that:

1. The concept designs and cost estimates be accepted. 2. That the 9 court option be adopted. 3. Any further submissions by stakeholders not received at the time of writing this report are considered. 2. BRIEF

Study Purpose The purpose of this brief is to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates for the redevelopment/reconfiguration/resurfacing of all courts located within the Kardinia Park Netball Complex. The schematic design should comply with Netball Victoria guidelines for Netball court design as well as provide spatial requirements for adjacent parkland.

Introduction In 2007 an audit was conducted on all Netball courts within City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) to provide advice to Council as to whether courts complied with current netball court design guidelines. The audit examined the playability of existing court surfaces as well as highlighting those facilities in need of urgent repair/redevelopment. At the time of the audit being conducted on the Kardinia Park Netball Complex (August 2007), the courts were deemed to be in a fair condition with no compliance to current guidelines. Kardinia Park is the premier sporting precinct within CoGG the site netball facilities currently house two netball associations (Geelong Netball Association, GNA, and Geelong Unity Netball Association, GUNA) as well as being used heavily by St Mary’s Sporting Club and Netball Geelong. Within the complex there are twelve courts divided into two tenancies of 6 courts. GNA & GUNA are allocated six courts each whilst sharing the main clubrooms. GNA occupy the southern 6 courts and GUNA occupy the northern 6 courts. Netball Geelong currently use 11 courts one night a week for junior competitions and St Mary’s use 2 courts during the winter months for their home games. Since the audit in 2007, signs of deterioration appear to have accelerated. Recently one of the northern 6 courts was closed due to it becoming unsafe owing to a combination of damage from tree roots and a moving sub-surface. Another three courts are also beginning to suffer from sub-surface movement. The redesigned complex should take into consideration the need to meet compliance with Netball Victoria guidelines. This will include: lighting; playing surface; sub-surface structure; shelters; orientation; number of courts, and; impact on surrounding parkland. In addition to the design an analysis on the number of courts required by all user groups should be undertaken to determine the quantum of courts required on the site to maximise site utilisation across the spread of useable hours. Funding support options have been examined and it is recommended that Council seek co-funding with agencies such as Sport and Recreation Victoria. Creating a premier Netball Complex within Kardinia Park will add to the prestige of the Park and enable users to play on the best courts in the region.

Background Kardinia Park Netball Complex has been a part of the landscape within Kardinia Park for over 50 years. Two Netball Associations, Geelong and Geelong Unity, have operated side-by-side within the Park for this period of time, with thousands of players having played there. Netball Victoria, as recently as 2007, initiated new facility audits and guidelines for the layout of netball courts/complexes. During August 2007, CoGG conducted an audit within Kardinia Park and found that there were several issues, particularly:

 Not enough distance between courts;  Run-offs adjacent to courts too short;  Lighting decreased in effectiveness;  Courts have significant camber, exacerbated by recent years of below average rainfall and moving sub-surface;  No player change rooms;  No separate player warm-up area;  Rusting goal posts, and;  Significant cracking in some courts.

Kardinia Park Netball Complex is used for recreational netball as well as competition netball on four days/evenings per week plus weekends. The user groups co-exist and rarely operate on the same days. Geelong Netball Association and Geelong Unity both host annual tournaments attracting teams from associations all over the state. In more recent times, Netball Geelong and St Mary’s Sporting Club have begun using the courts for their competitions.

Being a large complex consisting of twelve courts, with the adjacent parkland, sporting ovals and BBQ/playground areas makes Kardinia Park an attractive location for other users such as schools and families.

Information obtained from clubs pertaining to membership and demand for participation suggests that the longer established associations (Geelong Unity Netball Association and Geelong Netball Association) have been greatly impacted by the emergence of two new competitions through the St.Mary’s Football Netball Club and Netball Geelong.

This is seen in the membership data which shows a steady and significant decline (by approximately two thirds) for Geelong Unity Netball Association since 2000, whilst St.Mary’s Football Netball Club has experienced a growth of the same proportion (63% growth from 2005 to 2009). The root of this growth is in junior participants (under 17 year olds) which has almost doubled over this period. Geelong Netball Association also reports a steady membership decline with Tuesday and Thursday competitions decreasing in players and the dissolution of the Friday and Saturday competitions. The Association has experienced a slight increase in the Wednesday night competition and the Ladies and Juniors Monday competitions have remained stable and strong.

This suggests for Geelong that there is not necessarily a decline in netball participants, but rather redistribution across a larger number of competition providers.

Project Area Kardinia Park Netball Complex is bordered by:

- Car park to the North and North-east; - Geelong Cricket Ground to the East; - West Kardinia Oval to the South-west; - Playground & open parkland to the West; - Geelong Football Umpires League and Skilled Stadium to the South-east, and; - La Trobe Terrace (aka Melbourne Road) to the West.

Mel. Ref 452 A6

The total area of the complex is approximately 10,300m2.

Any new constructions are bound by the existing areas that the courts occupy.

Purpose The purpose of the this brief is to develop conceptual designs and cost estimates for Netball Victoria compliant redesign of the netball complex, lighting and landscaping components of Kardinia Park Netball Complex, Geelong. The schematic design should also provide spatial requirements for future playgrounds, toilets and club room expansions.

Project Objectives In undertaking this project the Consultant should at all times be cognisant of the following objectives:

 To develop conceptual designs and Opinions of probable costs for the netball courts reconstruction/redesign as per Netball Victoria compliance guidelines.

 To develop a schematic design that includes spatial requirements for a future playground, some landscaping, club rooms expansion, a warm up area and a ‘show’ court.

 To protect and enhance the social, environmental and heritage values of Kardinia Park. This will include the Overview and assessment of the cultural heritage values at the reserve to determine its aesthetic, historic and/or social significance (if any). This should include a desktop assessment and recommendations about existing vegetation within the development area.

 To improve the overall amenity function of the reserve.

 To ensure that any inherent risks currently associated with the active and passive use of the reserve are identified and resolved.

 To resolve any vehicular circulation, parking, access and egress issues around Kardinia Park Netball Complex.

 To provide Opinions of probable costs (based on rates and quantities) for each component of netball court design. 8

 To provide a suggested works implementation program for staging the project in consultation with relevant CoGG officers.

Project Tasks

Task 1 Initial meeting with Council’s Project Manager to clarify and agree to the project brief, consultation plan and relevant stages of the project.

Task 2 Map existing conditions at Kardinia Park either by survey or by using existing data. CoGG has recently updated topographic information and has data available in the form of a digital contour layer (0.5 m interval) as well as Light Detection and Ranging data (LIDAR) for the area. These data can be made available to the successful proponent on request.

Task 3 Undertake a desktop audit and field inspection of known and predicted heritage values for the Kardinia Park Netball Complex. This assessment needs to identify any registered sites of Aboriginal and cultural heritage significance and to verify the results of any prior assessment or legislation that may have implications for works in the reserve.

Task 4 Research Netball Victoria requirements/standards regarding Netball Courts. A review of recently constructed outdoor netball courts/complexes in Victoria is to be made a part of this research.

Task 5 Undertake geotechnical investigation to establish likely construction methods to be used for the proposed Netball Complex.

Task 6 Conduct an appropriate level of consultation with key stakeholders and the wider community. The results of the consultation will be documented and where appropriate, incorporated into the Consultant’s recommendations. The key stakeholders are listed later in this brief.

Task 7 Use previous studies and consultations with CoGG officers to Identify locations for the infrastructure associated with the Netball Complex.

Task 8 Desktop assessment of vegetation including indigenous and non-indigenous species and make recommendations for the future management of new and existing vegetation.

Task 9 Develop an issues and opportunities paper for consultation before developing an initial draft of the Kardinia Park Netball Complex Concept Design.

Task 10 Develop a draft Netball Complex Design for approval by the Council’s Community and Infrastructure Department and amend as appropriate for public consultation. The draft Netball Complex Design should include:

1. Existing features such as roads, buildings, trees, ovals and Skilled Stadium

2. A long section of the complex showing its grade

3. Cross section of the complex showing the width, cross fall and elevation.

4. Spatial requirements for future playground, landscaping, club rooms’ expansion and a ‘show’ court.

Task 11 Undertake a public consultation program on the draft Netball Complex Design. This task will involve the development of coloured plans for display purposes and participation in public consultation meeting(s).

Task 12 Amend the draft Netball Complex Design following a review of public comment.

Task 13 Present the final Kardinia Park Netball Complex Design to Council’s Community and Infrastructure Department for consideration and adoption. This may require the attendance at a Councillor Briefing session.

Key Stakeholders External:  Netball Victoria  Geelong Netball Association  Geelong Unity Netball Association  St Mary’s Sporting Club (Geelong) Inc  Netball Geelong  Geelong Football Umpires League  Geelong Cats

 Geelong Cricket Club

Internal:  Sport & Recreation Unit  Community, Infrastructure & Recreation Department  Marketing and Events Unit  Capital Projects Department  Parks Management Unit (Reserve and Tree maintenance)  Property Unit (building maintenance)  Engineering Department  Environment Unit  Ward and Portfolio Councillors

Reference Documents  Netball Victoria Facility Audit, August 2007.  The City of Greater Geelong “Kardinia Park Masterplan and Management Plan” Thompson Berrill Landscape Design, May 2006.  The City of Greater Geelong Environmental Management Strategy.  The City of Greater Geelong Biodiversity Strategy.  The City of Greater Geelong Study of Open Space Networks  The City of Geelong Style Guide  Football and Netball Lighting Guide, Department of Planning and Community Development  Netball Court Planning Guide, Department of Planning and Community Development  All relevant Acts and Regulations.  Any other relevant documents.

3. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site is Kardinia Park in South Geelong.

The site is generally bounded by Kilgour St to the north and a car park access road to the west. There is a very gentle fall of 3 metres from the North to the South over 150 metres, varying between 22m at the northern and 19m at the southern end above sea level. The site is shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Existing site

Existing facilities on or close to the site are:

1. 12 Netball courts. 2. Geelong Cricket Club oval 3. St Marys Football Club oval 4. Children’s playground 5. Car parking to the west and the north east of the courts 6. Skilled Stadium (Geelong Football Club) 7. Kardinia Park outdoor pool

A number of trees exist to the perimeter of the courts and these are mapped on the drawings included in this report. Quercus robur (The Oak) tree on the eastern edge of the northern court pad is particularly important and has heritage status. There is a spreading Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig) located further South on the East side of the courts.

The site is zoned Public Park and Recreation and it is not subject to inundation in a 100 year flood event.

4. ISSUES The site presents the issues listed below. The issues will be discussed in this section of the report.

1. Landscape setting and character 2. Number of Courts 3. Court surface 4. Run off areas 5. Lighting 6. Town Planning 7. Shelters 8. Show Court 9. Park amenity

4.1 Landscape setting and character. The courts are located towards the North-west corner of Kardinia Park. A significant attribute of the park is its visual permeability from particularity the north, west and south sides. The netball courts and their immediate surrounds cover an area of just over one hectare. The edges to all but the east side are either completely or party surrounded by road and car parking. Beyond the courts to the east and north is open parkland and to the west is the Geelong Cricket Ground, this cricket ground is well maintained and contributes to the sense of spaciousness and backdrop when viewed across the netball courts from the north and east. The immediate surround of the courts is generally poor quality grass cover and this is probably exacerbated by a number of factors being:  Poor soil, particularly to the north-west corner which appears to have small stones across most of the surface.  The prolonged drought.  The extent of tree canopy in parts, making grass impossible to grow.  The amount of regular foot traffic from players and spectators between the fence and courts.

The surrounding car park areas and roads to the north, west and south necessitate vehicle control this is currently achieved through both timber post and pipe rail fencing and with steel pipe rail fencing. The edge of the asphalt courts and surrounding grassed areas (mostly earth) vary from a couple of metres up to 18 metres. Within the worn earth grassed area are a number of specimen trees. The largest and most significant trees are to the east being: 1. an Quercus robur (English Oak) and 2. a Ficus macrophylla (Moreton Bay Fig).

There are several large gum trees to the south and west of the courts :  Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum),  Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Ironbark),  Corymbia manculata (spotted Gun)  Eucalyptus spathulata (Swamp Mallet).

To the north side of the fenced area there are a group of Eucalyptus melliodora (Yellow Bot). A large Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) is centrally located within the wedge of path and grass separating the set of courts. A Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) is within 1 metre of the edge of the run-off to the asphalt court at the north end of the complex. The Eucalyptus saligna may require removal should court layouts be reconfigured. The Corymbia ficifolia should be retained as it is located outside of the existing asphalt run-off surface.

4.2 Number of courts The venue currently comprises twelve courts separated into a northern bank of six and a southern bank of six. The courts are heavily used by four separate netball user groups. As outlined in this report, the courts do not comply with Netball Victoria minimum playing area dimensions, which are based on Netball Australia requirements and are; 15.25m width, 30.5m length (from Official Rules of the International Federation of Netball Associations, 2001 – of which Netball Australia is a member).

There is recognition from the user groups that the number of courts will most likely need to be consolidated in order to achieve Netball Victoria’s minimum dimensions, and to also allow for consideration of the development of a show court, whilst retaining the outdoor setting and achieving the correct north-south orientation. The user groups indicated that, at a minimum, eight courts are required to efficiently conduct netball competitions within reasonable playing times on competition days. There is a desire to achieve more than eight courts where possible (with ten courts being ideal number to continue running competitions in the current format). There will be some impact on competition duration with eight courts (i.e. extension of competition duration).

It is imperative that the courts are oriented north-south to achieve Netball Victoria requirements and address player safety (in relation to sun-glare).

4.3 Court surface The user groups do not have a preference for surface type, except that any surface must achieve safety, slip-resistance, durability and ease-of-maintenance criteria. Netball Victoria recommends a hot mix or acrylic product as proven, quality surfaces that address player comfort, playability and slip-resistance. The impact of local conditions (soil type, rainfall, local environment etc) was also raised as a consideration in determining an appropriate surface type.

The City of Greater Geelong has utilised a variety of acrylic products in the development of netball and tennis courts in the recent past (since 2006) including:  Synpave (a Rebound Ace product)  Plexipave  Laykold  Adcrete.

Decisions as to which surface to use are based on objective assessment undertaken on a project-by-project basis through the tender process giving consideration to factors such

as supplier experience, cost, compliance with project requirements and proven track record. In the past, user groups have been involved in assessing surface type to ensure their specific functional needs will be met. In each case the courts have been of a concrete base construction.

In relation to surface type utilised by other councils in the development of netball courts, the following cases are of interest.

The Warrnambool City Council has recently resurfaced two netball courts (at different reserves) using the Synpave product. In this case, the courts were already treated with Plexipave. Their experience was that the product was not meeting playability requirements (i.e. It was found to be slippery). This was on a hot mix sub-surface. In the Warrnambool area slip resistance was a major consideration due to the local conditions being prone to high levels of rainfall. Installation occurred over four days with a total cost of $12,000 ($6,000 each court for laying acrylic surface only).

The Waverley facility has had the Synpave surface installed for the past 10-15 years and has never had a problem with the product (the courts have been resurfaced over that time).

The major netball complex in the Greater Shepparton City Council has a Plexipave surface – this currently has problems, not caused by the acrylic surface, but the breakdown occurring in the asphalt base.

As the oldest of these surfaces was installed only three years ago, it is still too early to make judgements on the longevity, durability and maintenance. Each of the surfaces appear to have been embraced by the respective user groups as evidenced by Council not having experienced any complaints regarding slipperiness, cracking / peeling etc.

From the perspective of the Council project engineers, there is little that differentiates the products (i.e. similar warranty conditions).

The netball user groups of Kardinia Park Netball Complex do not have a specific requirement for surface type. The main consideration is that the surface performs to functionality and playability requirements including sufficient cushioning in the sub- surface to address player comfort and safety, and that the same surface extends over the run-off areas.

Given the current status of some courts at the Kardinia Park Netball Complex being severely impacted by exposed tree roots, there is a need to consider a surface type and sub-base construction that will stand-up to, and provide enough ‘give’ to allow for some earth movement. Other site conditions that have impacted on the existing surface include trees dropping seeds / fruit and sap, the need to be tolerant to non-netball use such as bikes being ridden across the courts, roller-blading / skateboarding etc.

Appendix 1 provides a summary of various playing surfaces appropriate for netball courts.

4.4 Run off areas As discussed, the courts do not comply with minimum dimensions for run-offs set by Netball Victoria. These requirements are for a clear run-off space of 3.05m outside each side line and end line, in the same surface as the court (per the requirements set by the International Federation of Netball Associations of which Netball Australia is a member). Where courts are located side-by-side or end-to-end, the run off between courts is set at 3.65m. All run-off spaces must be clear of obstructions including seating, fencing and light poles (i.e. 3.05m space between the court and goal posts, walls, seating, shelters).

These dimensions are illustrated in the following diagram:

Figure: Netball Court Specifications (Netball Court Planning Guide, Department of Planning and Community Development)

One-court layout – with shelters and lighting Two-court layout – with shelters and lighting

Four-court layout – with shelters and lighting

Assessment of the Kardinia Park Netball Complex courts is that the run off to the north, south and west is substandard, and the run off between the courts is also under minimum dimension. Run off to the east is compliant.

A potential solution of working within the existing general footprint of the total court surface to achieve the increased run offs is to relocate the shelters away from the central line between the courts to the outside edges.

4.5 Lighting Sport and Recreation Victoria provide a Guide to lighting Netball Courts. The following text is taken largely from that Guide.

Standards The Australian Standards (series 2560.4) contains recommendations and requirements specific to the lighting of outdoor netball and basketball. The standard deals with training and competition levels of play.

The Standard contains information highlighting the maintained horizontal illuminance levels required for ‘training’ and ‘competition’ play for netball.

The standard is 200 lux for competition and 100 lux for training.

Equipment Lighting should be designed and installed so that the visual task can be comfortably performed by the participants, officials and spectators.

The nature of netball is fast paced with players moving around the court in all directions. During play the ball may be thrown to heights of eight metres. It is important that players are able to follow the flight of the ball and the actions of other players over the entire court.

Consideration should be given at the beginning of installation for what the intended purpose of play is; training or competition as making provision for such (in pole sizes, cabling etc.) can significantly reduce the cost of the future upgrading.

Types of Floodlights The 1000 watt Metal Halide Lamp is the preferred floodlight for netball court lighting. In comparison to a standard 1500 watt Tungsten Halogen Lamp the 1000 watt Metal Halide provides a more efficient light output and has a longer lamp life, lasting up to 6000 hours compared with 2000 hours of use.

Height and Type of Poles Minimum pole heights are recommended for single courts of eight metres through to 12 metres and for multiple courts 12-15 metres depending on the light output of the floodlight. Therefore, the level of play should be considered at the outset before selecting a pole height.

Poles required for netball are often a fixed design requiring maintenance access through an elevated work platform. It is important that poles be checked for structural adequacy complete with light fittings and any brackets required to suit the recommended mounting heights.

The budget table in Attachment B provides indicative pole supply costings.

Netball twin court lighting guide Competition – 200 lux

Design summary Level of play Competition Average lux 208 Number of lamps 8 Number of poles 4 Pole height 12m Type of floodlight used 1kW symmetrical beam

4.6 Town Planning City of Greater Geelong staff state that a Planning Permit will not be required for the construction of works on this site.

4.7 Drainage Drainage of the courts is significantly lacking. The courts get cluttered with leaf litter and do not effectively release water resulting in pools forming. This is added to by the uneven surface. The risk of leaf litter causing the potential for slippery spots to develop is recognised by Netball Victoria. Given the fact that significant trees already exist close to the court it may be necessary to manage this risk by sweeping litter from the courts before games.

Surface water does not drain away fast enough to provide a safe environment for players. Netball Victoria requirement for drainage is for a minimum fall of 1:100 in longitudinal and transverse directions.

4.8 Shelters All user groups agreed that the location of shelters on the outer boundaries of the courts (i.e. the eastern edge, and western edge) will service the needs of players and spectators.

There was a requirement for shelters to be larger than the current size to fit team officials, competition officials, players and spectators (eg. approximately 5 players and 4 team officials for each team, plus spectators). One user has a requirement for separate areas for scorers and time keepers (i.e. partitioned from players, coaches and spectators).

The design of shelters of a transparent material (similar to the design of some bus shelters) would create a pleasant setting for shelters to allow through-visibility and not impact negatively on park amenity. The design of shelters, which should be uniform, should be further developed during the detailed design phase of the project.

It was noted by users that the eastern aspect of the courts would ideally be treated for protection from westerly weather conditions such as wind and rain through the provision of a wind break (built or natural).

4.9 Show Court In realigning the courts to comply with Netball Victoria minimum dimensions, consideration has been given to the development of a show court. This concept has been supported by the netball user groups. Except for the court sizes, Netball Victoria does not have any minimum facility requirements to guide the provision of a show court. The following was determined by the user groups:  The preferred location for a show court is in the centre of the northern and southern blocks of courts, immediately in front of the clubhouse - with at least four courts to the north and south of the show court (i.e. nine in total).  Some permanent spectator seating would be required for a show court, with consideration given to the provision of additional portable seating for occasional high profile games. The design of seating would need to occur so as not to impact on surrounding playing areas. Seating would be ideally positioned along the sidelines to optimise viewing for spectators.

In terms of seating provision, St.Mary’s Football Netball Club indicated that it has the potential to attract in excess of 2,000 spectators to high profile games. The Club uses the indoor venue, The Arena for these purposes.

It was suggested that, because the show court will not be roofed, it will not attract State level games; therefore seating capacity only needs to allow for high profile domestic association games.

Learning’s from other venues with show courts indicates that; Waverley has two show courts (indoors) with permanent seating. The grandstand has provision for 800 seating. There is also additional portable seating available for occasions of larger crowds. There have been no issues with surface damage caused by the portable seating. Based on experience, the suggestion was for an outdoor show court to cater for around 500 spectators with seating (i.e. five rows of seating along both sides).

Shepparton has a court with seating for 100-120 spectators. It also has light weight, portable seating available.

In its Netball Court Planning Guide, Netball Victoria suggests that, to optimise the upkeep and condition of playing surfaces, chairs not be permitted on court surfaces unless they are placed on a timber base.  A separate time keeper’s area is ideally required at a show court.  The scope of the project does not allow for a design that includes a roofed or indoor netball facility.  All other requirements of a show court would be the same for a standard court (i.e. lighting, shelters etc).

4.10 Park Amenity Users identified that safety and security is a major consideration at the Park, and that any infrastructure should be designed to maximise informal surveillance. The opportunity was identified to complete the existing fence line, to continue around the south-eastern end of the southern netball courts near the cricket oval. This would also prevent cars from driving on the courts for cricket spectating. With any fencing, provision would still need to be maintained for maintenance / emergency vehicle access. Users nominated an area south of the club house as a potential location for emergency vehicle access.

The netball user groups felt that the courts should not be enclosed with fencing, but rather, that fencing should be considered for the purposes of controlling wayward balls. It was suggested that this could be achieved through filling in the existing pipe and rail fence with chain mesh. The issue of cricket balls occasionally being hit onto the netball courts requires consideration to address safety. To this end, consideration should be given to the provision of a mechanism for preventing cricket balls from moving onto the netball courts, eg. portable netting along the cricket oval boundary abutting the netball court area.

5. CULTURAL HERITAGE

5.1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage A number of archaeological assessment reports have been completed in the Geelong Area, mostly on the periphery of the built up area or on the Barwon River and Port Phillip Bay Shoreline. In some cases, Aboriginal archaeological sites have been located within the built up areas of the city.

The most relevant to the present study are:

Stuart, I. 2001, An Archaeological Survey of the Geelong Powerhouse Site, Mackey Street, North Geelong, Unpublished report to LDC Management.

Weaver, F. 2000, Osborne House Precinct, Swinburne Street, North Geelong: Unpublished report to the City of Greater Geelong.

Cekalovic, H. 2002. An archaeological survey , Ford Geelong, Victoria. Report for Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd.

No archaeological survey has been conducted in Kardinia Park or the immediate vicinity.

A search of the AAV Heritage Registrar has revealed a number of Aboriginal cultural heritage within about2 km radius of the study area (see Table below).

VAHR Site Number Site Type Site Name 7721-0035 Artefact Scatter Kardinia Creek 1 7721-0036 Artefact Scatter Kardinia Creek 2 7721-0037 Artefact Scatter Kardinia Creek 3 7721-0038 burial Ashby burial 7721-0101 Artefact Scatter Princess Bridge bypass 54 7721-0152 Artefact Scatter Jeringot 1 7721-0241 Artefact Scatter Eastern Park (Geelong) 1 7721-0242 Artefact Scatter Eastern Park (Geelong) 2 7721-0302 Surface Scatter Batesford 1 7721-0408 Isolated Artefact Osbourne House 1 7721-0409 Shell Midden Moorpanyul Park Midden 7721-0428 Surface Scatter Norlane Artefact Scatter 7721-0440 Shell Deposit Bloxham’s Beach 1 7721-0450 Isolated Artefact Swinburne St 1 7721-0451 Artefact Scatter Podbury Crescent 1 7721-0501 Artefact Scatter Breakwater IA1 7721-0506 Artefact Scatter Bell Park 1 7721-0507 Artefact Scatter Hume Res 1 7721-0540 Isolated Artefact Ford Geelong IA 1 7721-0541 Surface Artefact Scatter Ford Geelong SAS 1 7721-0641 Isolated Artefact Frank Moor Res 1 7721-0676 Artefact Scatter Baileys Park Estate 1 7721-0831 Artefact Scatter Waymouth St 11.2-3 Historic Place Barmilok Gift-giving meeting 5.4-42 Historic Place Geelong (C.Read), Honorary Correspondent Depot

Table 1: Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within 2 km radius of the study area.

These sites are generally isolated artefacts, or small stone artefact scatters, although a number of shell middens have been found on the cliffs around Corio Bay, and a burial was recorded many years ago, north of the Geelong CBD.

There are no recorded Aboriginal sites in Kardinia Park, the nearest site is an artefact scatter in Eastern Park. This and other similar sites, however, demonstrate that Aboriginal archaeological sites may be preserved in urban contexts.

5.2 Historical Sites

No previously recorded historical or historical archaeological sites have been identified within or nearby the present study area. It is possible that earlier structures have been present in the study area, but the construction of the present roads, buildings and courts would have destroyed any significant remains of such features.

Historic sites recorded in the vicinity of the study are include the following:

Heritage Inventory Site Type Site Name Site Number D7721-0128 Structure Barwon Terrace box Drain H7721-0051 Building Westbourne Villa H7721-0050 Building Geelong Prison H7721-0055 Building Volum Brewery Malthouse H7721-0088 Building Geelong Supreme Court D7721-0127 Structure Barwon Terrace Bluestone Drain D7721-0126 Structure Barwon Terrace culvert H7721-0025 Building Kinnears Ropeworks H7721-0061 Structure Moorabool Street Wharf

Table 2: Historic Archaeological sites within 2 km radius of the study area.

5.3 Statutory Requirements Under the Act a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is required for an activity if (a) all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity (s.6 r.5).

The construction of a sport or recreation facility is considered a High Impact Activity.

Areas of cultural Heritage Sensitivity are defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, and those of relevance to the present study area are:

Areas of cultural heritage sensitivity are:

 A registered cultural heritage place, and within 50 metres of a registered place

 Named waterways (with a name registered under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998), and within 200m of named waterways

 Coastal land within 200m of the high water mark

 Parks (under National Parks Act)

There are no registered cultural heritage places within the study area or within 50 m of it. The Barwon River, the nearest waterway, is about 600m to the south, the coast is more than a kilometre away, and Kardinia Park is not a park as determined by the National Parks Act.

Therefore a mandatory cultural heritage management plan is not required for the proposed works at the Kardinia Park netball facility.

However, the Aboriginal Heritage Act also makes it an offence to do something that causes harm, or is likely to cause harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. In order to ensure compliance with this law, it would be necessary to put measures in place to manage the risk of Aboriginal cultural heritage being found, or harmed during any works. A voluntary Cultural Heritage Management Plan could be prepared, or other archaeological assessment could be undertaken to determine what level of likelihood exists that Aboriginal cultural heritage is present in areas that will be impacted.

As a guide, areas which are considered to have some potential for intact ground surfaces are shown in the following figure. There is some possibility Aboriginal cultural heritage might survive in these areas. There is little or no potential for cultural heritage to survive in the areas of the roads, buildings or existing courts.

Figure 2: Areas around Kardinia Netball courts with potential for intact ground surfaces.

Historic places and Historic archaeological sites are protected under the Heritage Act 1995. Under this act it is an offence to disturb an historical archaeological site unless a

consent to disturb has been issued. As it is not considered likely that historical archaeological material is likely to be located in the present study area, further investigation may not be warranted. However, if any such material is found during works, it would be necessary for the works to stop, the nature of the material determined, and a consent to disturb obtained from Heritage Victoria before commencing.

5.4 Assessment

In summary, it is considered that there is a low likelihood that Aboriginal cultural heritage may be present in the study area, and there is therefore a risk of causing harm if works were to be undertaken.

There are no identified historical or historical archaeological sties within the present study area, and it is not considered necessary to undertake any further historical archaeological investigations.

6. Design Methodology The design team is:

Project Delivery Pty Ltd – Civil Design and consultation

Michael Smith and Associates Landscape Architecture and Urban Design – Landscape Plan and species identification

ASR Research – Recreation Planning and sports consulting

Biosis Research – Historical Archaeologists

The following points were agreed with the City of Greater Geelong and should be noted:

1. The City of Greater Geelong provided a list of stakeholders to be consulted during the project. 2. The existing club rooms are not to be upgraded as part of this project. 3. The facilities are to fit generally within the existing footprint. 4. Court and run off dimensions are to meet Netball Victoria standards. 5. Provision should be made for one or more show courts. 6. Courts should run generally north south. 7. Parts of the grassed area between the fence and courts will be landscaped to improve the visual amenity and function. This will include improvements to stormwater management where possible and provision of shade. 8. Stormwater management works are included for all options. 9. The scope of the project does not allow for a design that includes a roofed or indoor netball facility.

6.1 Environmentally Sustainable Design The concept design includes several elements which will be beneficial to the environment of the area. These are:

1. ongoing treatment of stormwater generated by the court surfaces 2. planting of indigenous trees on the site.

6.2 Geotechnical Issues No Geotechnical Report was developed as part of this project.

The pavements shown as part of the design would be suitable for construction on normal subgrades. The pavement design should be verified as part of the detailed design process.

7. CONCEPT DESIGN The Concept Design is shown on the following pages. It addresses the issues raised in Section 4 and is the result of consultation with the Stakeholders. The following points should be noted:

1. Option 1 provides 9 courts plus a warm up area. One of the courts is a show court. Space has been allowed for the installation of temporary seating for the show court. This option provides for removal of the existing asphalt surface and construction of a new concrete slab with a synthetic playing surface. The show court would be surrounded by a concrete spectator and warm up area. 2. Option 2 provides 12 courts including a full new asphalt surface overlaid on the existing courts. The existing steeply sloped drainage area which runs north south between the courts would be reshaped and provided with an asphalt spoon drain. It must be noted that this option simply lays a thin layer of asphalt over the existing surface. Hence the new surface would be subject to ongoing issues with tree root damage and ground movement. It would also have a surface shape containing most of the imperfections of the existing courts. 3. The courts comply with Netball Victoria guidelines in terms of court size and run off areas. 4. All options comply with Netball Victoria guidelines in terms of court lighting. 5. All options have been laid out so that they are able to fit generally within the existing footprint with small extensions but new shelters will need to be located on the outside of the courts rather than along the centre spine between courts. 6. The shelters suggested are a high quality transparent design and would be large enough at 7.4m to accommodate the off court people for 2 sides. A shelter of the proposed type is shown below. 7. Parts of the grassed area between fence and court will be landscaped to improve the Visual amenity and functions. This will include improvements to stormwater where possible management and provision of shade. 8. Stormwater management works are included for all options.

Figure 3 Shelter

7.1 Landscape Concept This study recommends the complete reconfiguration of the netball courts including a reduction in the number of courts to facilitate establishment of a centrally located show court. The re-profiling of the entire existing asphalt surface will be generally restricted to the existing asphalt surface’s footprint (edge of the asphalt run-off area).

A centrally located Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) approximately 15 metres in height would need to be removed to accommodate the proposed redevelopment of the courts. All other trees between the existing asphalt run-off edges and the existing barrier fences can be retained. One tree Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) to the north end of the courts is located close to the asphalt edge. This tree should be accommodated and its root system protected from damage in the redevelopment. The improvement to the amenity and presentation of the natural grassed areas between the edge of the asphalt run-off area and the fencing should be improved by the following infrastructure elements.

1. Provision of the additional shade trees for the benefit of spectators, coaches and players. 2. Provision of players/ coach shelters of predominantly clear perspex to maintain the visual permeability across the courts and parkland. The shelter would provide wind protection from North West and south west prevailing wind. There is considerable set back of space between the fencing and asphalt run-off area to the west side to accommodate a number of shelters. 3. Much of the existing grass is in poor condition to the areas between the asphalt run-off and fencing. Consideration should be given to alternative surfaces such as porous paving or synthetic grass. Porous paving and synthetic grass provide a far more sustainable outcome that persevering with natural grass which will always struggle underneath established tress and in area of high pedestrian use.

7.2 Design Drawings

Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 8. COST ESTIMATE Cost Estimates have been prepared and are attached. The following should be noted:

1. A contingency amount of 15% has been allowed 2. GST has not been allowed. 3. Actual construction costs will depend on the final detailed design, market conditions and construction management.

Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 9. CONSULTATION

Stakeholder Method of Consultation Feedback Design Response 1 Netball Victoria Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The Concept Design has considered elements, surface types, examples of other the key issues raised and Telephone discussion netball venues discussed in the report incorporated their requirements. Feedback on draft design 2 Geelong Netball Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The Committee advises that no Association elements discussed in the report matter what option is undertaken, the reinforced concrete must be Feedback on draft design used for longevity of the courts. The Committee’s first preference is for 10 Courts with 2 show Courts, such courts to have a roof and run east west (i.e. the 9 court option but with 2 show courts). However failing that the Committee agree on the 9 Court Option. 3 Geelong Unity Netball Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The definite preference is for a plexi Association elements discussed in the report pave surface but there have been a number of concerns raised about Feedback on draft design the slipperiness of some of these surfaces. Apparently there are new courts (recently) at Winchelsea which we have had really good reports about and also Newtown and Chilwell. However the courts at Diamond Creek (where the preliminary round of State Titles were recently held) are not at all good and they are often closed on wet or frosty days.

The biggest concern was dropping from 12 courts to 9 or 4 each for each Association and a show court which would obviously have to be shared between each association.

4 Netball Geelong Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The Concept Design has considered elements discussed in the report the key issues raised and incorporated their requirements. Feedback on draft design 5 St.Mary’s Football Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The Concept Design has considered Netball Club elements discussed in the report the key issues raised and incorporated their requirements. Feedback on draft design 6 Geelong Football Attendance at meetings Contributed feedback on detailed facility The Concept Design has considered Umpires League elements discussed in the report the key issues raised and incorporated their requirements. Feedback on draft design 7 City of Greater Geelong Attendance at meetings Set project parameters The Concept Design has considered the key issues raised and Sport & Leisure Telephone discussion Contributed feedback to development of the incorporated their requirements. Department draft design Engineering Contributed feedback on detailed facility Department elements discussed in the report, in particular, surface type 8 Waverley Netball Telephone discussion Provided information pertaining to the netball Not applicable Centre venue in relation to surface type, show court requirements 9 Mildura Rural City Telephone discussion Provided information pertaining to the netball Not applicable Council venue in relation to surface type, show court requirements 10 City of Greater Telephone discussion Provided information pertaining to the netball Not applicable Shepparton venue in relation to surface type, show court requirements

11 Warrnambool City Telephone discussion Provided information pertaining to the netball Not applicable Council venue in relation to surface type, show court requirements

10. EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

There are a number of options which could be presented by mixing and matching the main variables:

 Court material, i.e. concrete or asphalt  Playing surface i.e. asphalt, concrete or synthetic coating and  Number of courts i.e. 9, 12 or some other number.

We will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two options which have been shown in detail, i.e. 9 court synthetic surface over concrete and 12 court thin asphalt overlay on existing courts.

9 Court Option, show court, concrete, synthetic surface

This option involves the removal of the existing asphalt surface, construction of a reinforced concrete slab over the existing court area and the application of a coloured synthetic playing surface.

The advantages of this option are as follows: 1. The reconstruction of the court as a reinforced concrete slab will offer a long life which is generally maintenance free 2. The reinforced concrete slab will be able to resist tree root damage better than other materials such as crushed rock. It would also be designed to cope with ground movement. 3. The addition of a synthetic surface is visually attractive and slip resistant. 4. The design of this option meets Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines in relation to run off areas. 5. The design of this option meets Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines in relation to lighting for training and competition. 6. The courts will be designed for optimum drainage and hence player safety. 7. Warm Up areas are available for use before games. 8. The Show Court provides a facility where key games can be played and spectator facilities can be concentrated.

The disadvantages of this option are: 1. The lower number of courts will require optimisation of scheduling by the Associations. 2. The cost of this option is higher than the 12 court option by approximately $661,000 or 88%.

12 Court Option, asphalt overlay onto existing courts.

This option involves the laying of an asphalt surface on top of the existing asphalt, in order to improve the shape of the courts. The new layer would vary in thickness between 30mm and say 100mm. The existing drainage “channel” along the centre of the court area would remain but be reshaped so that it would not be as deep or steep.

The advantages of this option are as follows: 1. Low initial cost. This option is approximately $661,000 cheaper than the 9 court option. 2. The provision of 12 courts continues the current level of service and scheduling remains unchanged. 3. The design of this option meets Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines in relation to run off areas. 4. The design of this option meets Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines in relation to lighting for training and competition. 5. Drainage of the area between the courts would be improved but would not be optimal.

The disadvantages of this option are as follows: 1. Although the initial Capital Cost would be low the maintenance costs would be likely to be high. The underlying pavement would not be improved and the new surface would be subject to damage from tree roots and ground movement. It may be that the new surface could fail very quickly, perhaps within weeks, after construction. 2. The slope of the courts would generally mirror the existing shape although some improvements could be made. Hence the flat areas where puddles form and the steep areas which can affect player’s stability would largely remain as is.

Conclusions

Our conclusion is assisted by reference to the Brief. The essential requirement of the Brief is to create a premier Netball Complex within Kardinia Park and enable users to play on the best courts in the region. The 12 court option will not achieve this aim. It will essentially provide a facility with lighting and run off areas which comply with Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines but a surface which has simply covered over the existing problems and is unlikely to hide those problems for more than a few years. The 9 court option provides a new facility which meets all of the Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines and would be a Premier Regional facility. The 9 court option provides: 1. A stable and optimal shaped surface 2. A structurally designed pavement that is engineered to cope with ground movement and tree root pressure. 3. A central Show Court with spectator areas for key games 4. Lighting and run off areas in accordance with Netball Victoria Safety Guidelines. 5. Warm up areas for players

Hence we conclude that the 9 court option is better value for money.

11. Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. The concept designs and cost estimates be accepted. 2. That the 9 court option be adopted. 3. Any further submissions by stakeholders not received at the time of writing this report are considered.

Report Appendices

Appendix 1 Comparison of court playing surfaces (summary excerpt from Netball Court Planning Guide, Department of Planning and Community Development)

Surface type Hot mix asphalt over asphalt Acrylic over asphalt base Acrylic over concrete base Cushioned acrylics over base concrete or asphalt Minimum Ideally in well drained stable Ideally in well drained stable Crushed rock bedding or sand As per concrete or asphalt specification sandy soils sandy soils with unperforated vapour bases barrier Acrylic surface as per product Adequate vapour barrier is specifications essential for concrete It is vital to have a high quality base surface Life span 15-20 years without a resheet Asphalt base in good stable Well constructed concrete base Asphalt or concrete – per conditions – 40 years (acrylic – 40 years previous examples surface will protect base from Acrylic surface – 7 to 10 years 7 to 10 years before top colour UV breakdown) coat needs rejuvenating Acrylic surface – 7 to 10 years Qualities Base is cost effective Base is cost effective Base Base – as per previous examples Surface has good traction, low Surface looks good, has A concrete base may be better maintenance, cost effective, can longevity, prolongs life of suited to poor / reactive soil Surface be surfaced with acrylic material asphalt base, low maintenance, conditions. Long term cushioned surface later in life, can be applied all dries quickly after rain, Can be surfaced with acrylic at providing maximum player year round improved player comfort with a later date, however, will comfort and reduces leg some cushioning, court depend on the condition of the fatigue. temperature cooler in hot base. weather. Number of cushioned layers Surface can be customised to suit Resurface in 7-10 years will be budgets. approx. 80% of original Looks good, has longevity, low surfacing costs. maintenance, dries quickly after Looks good, longevity, dries rain, improved player comfort quickly after rain, court with some cushioning, court temperature cooler in hot temperature cooler in hot weather, low maintenance.

Surface type Hot mix asphalt over asphalt Acrylic over asphalt base Acrylic over concrete base Cushioned acrylics over base concrete or asphalt weather. Resurface in 7-10 years will be approx. 80% of original colour Resurface in 7-10 years will be surfacing costs. approx. 80% of original surfacing costs. Issues Base Base Base Base – as per previous examples Suitability varies according to Suitability varies according to If poorly constructed then different soil types – generally different soil types – generally difficult to repair Surface poor / reactive soil conditions poor / reactive soil conditions Surface Consideration needs to be dictate that an asphalt base is dictate that an asphalt base given to court gradient, not suitable and / or cost and acrylic surface is not Consideration needs to be maintenance regimes, recoating effective. suitable and / or cost effective. given to court gradient, and player footwear to maintain maintenance regimes, Surface Surface good traction. recoating and player footwear May become rough over time as Consideration needs to be to maintain good traction. a result of ultra violet breakdown given to court gradient, of bitumen maintenance regimes, recoating and player footwear to maintain good traction.