Kardinia Park Netball Complex
Conceptual Design
July 2009
PROJECT DELIVERY PTY LTD
ABN 4 8 1 0 2 8 1 9 7 5 0
CON S U L T IN G
CIVIL
EN GIN EER S
CONTENTS
Page No.
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
2.
BRIEF
7
3.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
13
4.
ISSUES
15
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
Landscape Setting and Character
Number of Courts
Court Surface
Run off areas
Lighting
Town Planning
Drainage
Shelters
Show Court
Park Amenity
15
16
16
18
19
21
21
21
22
23
5.
CULTURAL HERITAGE
24
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Historical Sites
Statutory Requirements
Assessment
24
25
25
27
6.
DESIGN METHODOLOGY
28
6.1
6.2
Environmentally Sustainable Design
Geotechnical Issues
28
28
7.
CONCEPT DESIGN
29
7.1
7.2
Landscape Concept
Design Drawings
30
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.
2.
3.
The concept designs and cost estimates be accepted.
That the 9 court option be adopted.
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.
Page 1
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.
Page 2
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.
Page 3

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.
Page 4
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
Page 5
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.
Page 6
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
Page 7
Existing facilities on or close to the site are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
12 Netball courts.
Geelong Cricket Club oval
St Marys Football Club oval
Children’s playground
Car parking to the west and the north east of the courts
Skilled Stadium (Geelong Football Club)
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.
Page 8
4.
ISSUES
The site presents the issues listed below. The issues will be discussed in this section of
the report.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4.1
Landscape setting and character
Number of Courts
Court surface
Run off areas
Lighting
Town Planning
Shelters
Show Court
Park amenity
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).
Page 9
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
Page 10
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 subsurface 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.
Page 11
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
Page 12
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.
Page 13
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
Average lux
Number of lamps
Number of poles
Pole height
Type of floodlight used
Competition
208
8
4
12m
1kW symmetrical beam
Page 14
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).
Page 15
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).
Page 16
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.
Page 17
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
7721-0035
7721-0036
7721-0037
7721-0038
7721-0101
7721-0152
7721-0241
7721-0242
7721-0302
7721-0408
7721-0409
7721-0428
7721-0440
7721-0450
7721-0451
7721-0501
7721-0506
7721-0507
7721-0540
7721-0541
7721-0641
7721-0676
7721-0831
11.2-3
5.4-42
Site Type
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
burial
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Surface Scatter
Isolated Artefact
Shell Midden
Surface Scatter
Shell Deposit
Isolated Artefact
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Isolated Artefact
Surface Artefact Scatter
Isolated Artefact
Artefact Scatter
Artefact Scatter
Historic Place
Historic Place
Site Name
Kardinia Creek 1
Kardinia Creek 2
Kardinia Creek 3
Ashby burial
Princess Bridge bypass 54
Jeringot 1
Eastern Park (Geelong) 1
Eastern Park (Geelong) 2
Batesford 1
Osbourne House 1
Moorpanyul Park Midden
Norlane Artefact Scatter
Bloxham’s Beach 1
Swinburne St 1
Podbury Crescent 1
Breakwater IA1
Bell Park 1
Hume Res 1
Ford Geelong IA 1
Ford Geelong SAS 1
Frank Moor Res 1
Baileys Park Estate 1
Waymouth St
Barmilok Gift-giving meeting
Geelong (C.Read), Honorary
Correspondent Depot
Page 18
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 Number
D7721-0128
H7721-0051
H7721-0050
H7721-0055
H7721-0088
D7721-0127
D7721-0126
H7721-0025
H7721-0061
Site Type
Structure
Building
Building
Building
Building
Structure
Structure
Building
Structure
Site Name
Barwon Terrace box Drain
Westbourne Villa
Geelong Prison
Volum Brewery Malthouse
Geelong Supreme Court
Barwon Terrace Bluestone Drain
Barwon Terrace culvert
Kinnears Ropeworks
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
Page 19

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
Page 20
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.
Page 21
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.
Page 22
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
Page 23
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.
Page 24
7.2
Design Drawings
Page 25
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 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
9.
CONSULTATION
Stakeholder
Method of Consultation
Feedback
Design Response
1
Attendance at meetings
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements, surface types, examples of other
netball venues discussed in the report
The Concept Design has considered
the key issues raised and
incorporated their requirements.
Netball Victoria
Telephone discussion
Feedback on draft design
2
Geelong Netball
Association
Attendance at meetings
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements discussed in the report
Feedback on draft design
3
Geelong Unity Netball
Association
Attendance at meetings
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements discussed in the report
Feedback on draft design
Page 36
The Committee advises that no
matter what option is undertaken,
the reinforced concrete must be
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.
The definite preference is for a plexi
pave surface but there have been a
number of concerns raised about
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
elements discussed in the report
Feedback on draft design
5
St.Mary’s Football
Netball Club
Attendance at meetings
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements discussed in the report
Feedback on draft design
6
Geelong Football
Umpires League
Attendance at meetings
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements discussed in the report
Feedback on draft design
7
City of Greater Geelong
Attendance at meetings
Set project parameters
Sport & Leisure
Department
Telephone discussion
Contributed feedback to development of the
draft design
Engineering
Department
The Concept Design has considered
the key issues raised and
incorporated their requirements.
The Concept Design has considered
the key issues raised and
incorporated their requirements.
The Concept Design has considered
the key issues raised and
incorporated their requirements.
The Concept Design has considered
the key issues raised and
incorporated their requirements.
Contributed feedback on detailed facility
elements discussed in the report, in particular,
surface type
8
Waverley Netball
Centre
Telephone discussion
Provided information pertaining to the netball
venue in relation to surface type, show court
requirements
Not applicable
9
Mildura Rural City
Council
Telephone discussion
Provided information pertaining to the netball
venue in relation to surface type, show court
requirements
Not applicable
10
City of Greater
Shepparton
Telephone discussion
Provided information pertaining to the netball
venue in relation to surface type, show court
requirements
Not applicable
Page 37
11
Warrnambool City
Council
Telephone discussion
Page 38
Provided information pertaining to the netball
venue in relation to surface type, show court
requirements
Not applicable
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%.
Page 39
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.
Page 40
11. Recommendations
It is recommended that:
1.
2.
3.
The concept designs and cost estimates be accepted.
That the 9 court option be adopted.
Any further submissions by stakeholders not received at the time of writing
this report are considered.
Page 41
Report Appendices
Page 42
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
base
Acrylic over asphalt base
Acrylic over concrete base
Cushioned acrylics over
concrete or asphalt
Minimum
specification
Ideally in well drained stable
sandy soils
Ideally in well drained stable
sandy soils
Crushed rock bedding or sand
with unperforated vapour
barrier
As per concrete or asphalt
bases
Acrylic surface as per product
specifications
Adequate vapour barrier is
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
conditions – 40 years (acrylic
surface will protect base from
UV breakdown)
Well constructed concrete base
– 40 years
Asphalt or concrete – per
previous examples
Acrylic surface – 7 to 10 years
7 to 10 years before top colour
coat needs rejuvenating
Base – as per previous
examples
Acrylic surface – 7 to 10 years
Qualities
Base is cost effective
Base is cost effective
Base
Surface has good traction, low
maintenance, cost effective, can
be surfaced with acrylic material
later in life, can be applied all
year round
Surface looks good, has
longevity, prolongs life of
asphalt base, low maintenance,
dries quickly after rain,
improved player comfort with
some cushioning, court
temperature cooler in hot
weather.
A concrete base may be better
suited to poor / reactive soil
conditions.
Resurface in 7-10 years will be
approx. 80% of original
surfacing costs.
Page 43
Can be surfaced with acrylic at
a later date, however, will
depend on the condition of the
base.
Surface
Looks good, has longevity, low
maintenance, dries quickly after
rain, improved player comfort
with some cushioning, court
temperature cooler in hot
Surface
Long term cushioned surface
providing maximum player
comfort and reduces leg
fatigue.
Number of cushioned layers
can be customised to suit
budgets.
Looks good, longevity, dries
quickly after rain, court
temperature cooler in hot
weather, low maintenance.
Surface type
Hot mix asphalt over asphalt
base
Acrylic over asphalt base
Acrylic over concrete base
Cushioned acrylics over
concrete or asphalt
weather.
Resurface in 7-10 years will be
approx. 80% of original colour
surfacing costs.
Resurface in 7-10 years will be
approx. 80% of original
surfacing costs.
Issues
Base
Base
Base
Suitability varies according to
different soil types – generally
poor / reactive soil conditions
dictate that an asphalt base is
not suitable and / or cost
effective.
Suitability varies according to
different soil types – generally
poor / reactive soil conditions
dictate that an asphalt base
and acrylic surface is not
suitable and / or cost effective.
If poorly constructed then
difficult to repair
Surface
Surface
May become rough over time as
a result of ultra violet breakdown
of bitumen
Consideration needs to be
given to court gradient,
maintenance regimes,
recoating and player footwear
to maintain good traction.
Page 44
Surface
Consideration needs to be
given to court gradient,
maintenance regimes,
recoating and player footwear
to maintain good traction.
Base – as per previous
examples
Surface
Consideration needs to be
given to court gradient,
maintenance regimes,
recoating and player footwear
to maintain good traction.