Ku-ring-gai Council’s website describes the Norman Griffith’s synthetic field project as environmentally sensitive. But this is a fallacy that is costing a lot of money, and this is why we ask you to write to Ku-ring-gai councillors about it.

The idea that synthetic turf on Norman Griffith oval will be an environmentally friendly field is not borne out by any of the scientific literature as has been covered in previous issues of STEP Matters. The construction process has caused further damage.

The sedimentation coming off the field and flowing into Lane Cove River during construction has already had a negative impact that has been the subject of an EPA Clean-up notice and worse may be yet to come during the lifetime of use of the field. See EPA notice to council about this.

When the grass and soil (which acts as a carbon sink and supports living organisms) is replaced with a vast plastic shockpad covered with plastic grass and supporting infill the damage continues.

Quarry Creek below Yanko Road, a bushcare site which is at risk from Norman Griffith synthetic field (photo B. Hanna)

STEP continues to have concerns not just for the critically endangered plant community surrounding the field but downstream in Lane Cove National Park along the Quarry Creek bushcare site which has shown incredible regeneration over the last 20 years.

Some of the misinformation about the problems arising from the choice of synthetic turf for Norman Griffiths Oval are summarised below.

Myth 1. Using cork infill means there will be no risk of leachates or microplastic and PFAS contamination to players or the surrounding environment

Previously it was thought that the use of rubber tyre crumb infill was the main health risk. It’s now clear the actual plastic grass and plastic shock pad underneath the field are sources of PFAS and microplastics. With high rainfall events becoming more common with climate change, these contaminants can be swept into local waterways when mitigation measures fail to contain them. They bio-accumulate in aquatic life and soil.

Myth 2. Cork infill can’t be a pollutant like rubber crumb infill

Council argument that the use of so called ‘organic’ cork’ infill instead of rubber crumb is an ‘environmentally friendly’ option that fixes any pollution risk is false. Large quantities of cork infill entering Quarry Creek in a high rainfall event could qualify as a pollutant.

The photo below shows cork sludge and plastic blades at ELS Hall field in Ryde entering into Shipley creek after a storm event.

Myth 3. There will be no impact on Quarry Creek from excess water coming off the field

Concerns around impacts on Quarry Creek from excessive water coming off the field was the reason council staff initially rejected the plan to put a synthetic field at Norman Griffith. Putting an impermeable surface on top of a floodplain is always going to raise design issues. No modelling of impacts on Quarry Creek was undertaken for this new field design to prove that the field will work as a detention basin.

Council’s documents (called the Review of Environmental Factors or REF) claimed that no environmental damage would occur during construction but the opposite has occurred. The EPA has given council a notice over the multiple occurrences of sedimentation coming off the field and entering of Quarry Creek. Council must ensure that the same will not happen with microplastic and chemical contaminants by examining pollutant loads and monitoring them after construction.

Myth 4. There will be no impact on threatened species or endangered plant communities from the field

Tragically the environmental damage highlighted in ecologist Roger Lembitt’s report commissioned by the local community and sent to councillors appears to have already started.

The field is mapped as a wildlife corridor and location for endangered microbats and members of the community would go and watch them fly around the oval’s lights during COVID. The Powerful Owl also hunted for prey on the field (with its scat regularly seen in the forest above the oval). Neither have been sighted since construction began.

Additional work requirements have arisen during construction such as dealing with asbestos and extra water flow management. This calls into question the planning of the project. The additional work is likely to lead to changes to groundwater and hydrology that has not been examined nor its impacts on the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and rare orchids that surround the field.

What should you call on councillors to do?

STEP is encouraging members to write to councillors (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) and council officers and remind them of their obligation to ensure that our environment is not polluted and degraded by council’s own development. Ask them to ensure that the environmental damage from this field is both monitored and mitigated by ensuring the following happens:

• an independent legal expert examines liability risks to council should pollution from cork, microplastics or PFAS enter Quarry Creek in extreme rainfall events
• all flood modelling is made available publicly particularly for extreme and prolonged rainfall events
• a baseline survey is carried out of the Quarry Creek bushcare site so that any erosion impacts can be quickly assessed and properly dealt with
• data is monitored and published on microplastic and chemical pollutants coming off the field as per the NSW Chief Scientist recommendations and a plan is published for dealing with this as it arises