An extraordinary sequence of events has occurred in relation to the decision-making for the Norman Griffiths Oval surface.
Construction ceased in May 2025 when the contractor was sacked. Council then took over management but little progress was made. In September 2025 an extra budget of $5.4 million was approved to resume construction of a synthetic surface.
Following continuing issues NSW Public Works (NSWPW) was appointed to review the stormwater management system that had been designed by the original contractor. NSWPW found that the system based on a layer of aggregate was not adequate and recommended its replacement with a 2.4 megalitre concrete tank. It was also confirmed that the sewer line running under the field had to be replaced.
The replacement involves a huge cost blowout. The cost was reported to be $20.2 million including the cost of settling a dispute with the previous contractor.
In May 2026 some probity sense was imposed by enough of the councillors to request an independent cost comparison of installing natural grass versus synthetic. The vote was contentious as there was a 50-50 count for and against postponing the synthetic decision and requesting the comparison reports. The mayor, Christine Kay used her casting vote to approve the costing comparison.
NSW Public Works was commissioned to do this work. In recognition of community concern about the huge increase in costs they also agreed to conduct a representative resident survey of preference for synthetic or grass. A survey like this is actually a requirement under the Local Government Act and should have been completed before now.
The NSWPW report was due for the August council meeting but was delayed to 15 September meeting. The September meeting agreed to accept the report and to confirm the decision to conduct the resident survey. The report revealed another increase in costs but the quoted cost of synthetic vs natural grass was much the same at about $24 million!
There are many issues with the NSWPW report that are outline below.
So what was to happen next was in the hands of the councillors to make the next move. Which surface would they choose?
Not so fast — all this could be overturned!
As it happens, council elects a new mayor every two years. The vote occurred on 15 September. We now have a new mayor, Kim Wheatley, who has always voted in favour of synthetic.
On 16 September three councillors put up a rescission motion to be voted on 21 September to ignore the NSWPW report and plough ahead with the synthetic surface with a budget of $24.4 million. NSWPW would deliver the project and complete the logistics associated with completion including the review of environmental factors. They also wanted to rescind the decision to conduct the independent survey.
Also, on a complete change of subject, the motion included a decision to rescind owner’s consent for development of a new $5 million grandstand at the North Turramurra Recreation Area where there has been no progress since October 2022 as the soccer clubs don’t have enough funding. So the soccer clubs would have a win at Norman Griffiths and no new facilities at North Turramurra.
This appears to be all part of a plan or should we say conspiracy? A community protest was held outside the council chambers but, of course, the rescission motion was passed.
Shortcomings of the Public Works cost comparison
The Public Works cost comparison assumed that the same very expensive underground concrete stormwater detention system should be used for both the synthetic and high standard natural turf surfaces. No analysis has been done of alternative detention systems or associated filtration that could be suitable for natural grass where rainwater soaks into the surface and slows down the rate of runoff.
While we are not qualified to comment on the costings there are some items that we have comments on in the NSWPW report and STRI, the turf expert’s assessment of the options. These would come into the comparison of the features of the options that must be considered by councillors and the public during a consultation process.
NSWPW was engaged to provide an:
Updated cost comparison of delivering a best practice natural turf field at Norman Griffiths Oval compared to a synthetic turf surface.
One important element of the cost comparison is missing; that is the relative cost of maintaining the satisfactory operation of the field. In the case of a synthetic field this requires replacement of the surface and infill every 10 years or more frequently if the field has heavy use.
Much of the description of the surface choices is very general and not specific to the location of the field so that issues such as the type of synthetic turf or infill to be used and the microplastic filtering system are not covered.
The data of playing hours for a synthetic field of 60 to 80 hours is unrealistically high while the figure for best practice natural grass of 15 to 20 hours per week is low in comparison to other grass fields. This aspect of the report has been heavily criticised by the consultants who wrote the Best Practice Guidelines for Sporting Fields.
Capital expenditure review
Council has still not completed a capital expenditure review that is required for projects that cost more than $10 million. This is a probity review of the costs and benefits of large projects.