SITE SELECTION REPORT MISSION BEACH AQUATIC CENTRE FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA 12 May 2004 ARCHITECTS ECONOMISTS PLANNERS
ARGO PROJECTS PTY LTD ABN 14 050 404 870
Suite 1 Rialto Building 59 Hardgrave Rd West End. Brisbane T: +61 (0)7 3010 2300 F: +61 (0)7 3010 2399 E: info@argonavis.com.au W: argonavis.com.au PO Box 3378 South Brisbane BC Queensland 4101 Australia
AUSTRALIA PREPARED FOR:
Mr Paul Roxby President MISSION BEACH AQUATIC AND RECREATION CLUB 31 Bingil Bay Road Mission Beach Far North QLD 4852 AUSTRALIA
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 1 of 10 12 May 2004
BRISBANE MALAYSIA KUALA LUMPUR
1.0
INTRODUCTION This report was commissioned jointly by the Mission Beach Aquatic and Recreation Club (MBARC) and both Cardwell Shire Council (CSC) and Johnstone Shire Council (JSC). The site selection process is the most recent piece of consultation undertaken for this project and included discussions and presentations with the community and key stakeholders. The process was managed and assisted by Mr Will Marcus, Managing Director of Argo and author of this report. Significant consultation had been undertaken over a period of several years prior to the site selection process commencing. This prior investigative and consultative process is well documented in the Aquatic Facility Feasibility Study prepared by Customer Connection in March 2004. Few shires have taken such considerable effort to ensure that the true needs and desires of the community are met. A summary of these needs is well presented in the feasibility study and therefore not repeated here. The brief for the site selection process is in part established by the needs analysis.
2.0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report is based on the quality of the input received prior to and during the site selection process. Considerable efforts by Ken and Thelma Gray of Customer Connection in providing site information on all three sites prior to my visit to Mission Beach amounted to me being very well prepared. Ken also facilitated the process, which allowed me to focus on my work while in Mission Beach. Paul Roxby, Maureen Norris and Ken and Thelma Gray who constituted the “welcoming committee” made the site selection process not only effective but also enjoyable. I would especially like to thank Ken and Thelma for providing me with a vehicle while in Mission Beach at no cost and Maureen who lobbied extensively to secure excellent accommodation in a well-positioned chalet at The Horizon Resort Mission Beach immediately prior to Easter. MBARC paid for refreshments and a meeting space for the key stakeholder committee at The Horizon throughout the site selection process. Additionally, Ron Darlington has provided high quality site photographic services at no cost. The key stakeholder group represented the community extremely well in the process, each being acutely aware of their responsibility. Those who advised in these matters were (in alphabetical order): •
• • • • • • • • •
Chris Cattorossi, PE Teacher, Mission Beach Primary School; member of MARC’s Park Management Committee; local cricket club office bearer. Councilor Ken Fox, CSC. Doug Green, Manager of Environment Health Services, CSC. Belinda Jackson, Town Planner, CSC. Councilor Dave McCarthy, JSC; Member of joint Council Mission Beach Committee (JACSFACS). Maureen Norris, Committee Member, Mission Beach Aquatic and Recreation Club. Paul Roxby, President, Mission Beach Aquatic and Recreation Club. Bruce Sawdy, Engineering Director, JSC. Bill Souter, Mission Beach Rotary Club. Greg Underwood, Manager Technical Services, JSC.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 2 of 10 12 May 2004
The site selection process extended over three days and we are grateful for the significant time and quality input given by all members of the site selection committee.
3.0
SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY Three sites were presented for investigation: MARC’s Park, Giufre Site and Rotary Park. Substantial site information was collected by MBARC and processed by ARGO prior to site selection. Site plans of each site were generated all at 1:200 scale in preparation for the site investigations 3.1 Desk Top Analysis of Existing Information A facility feasibility study done by Customer Connection in May 2004 was the main source of information about regional and local demographics and prior community consultations. ARGO studied these in detail to assess the level of demand and nature of the facilities desired and needed by the community. The following information was also provided for study: • • • • • •
Site and location plans of the three possible sites. Geotechnical information on each site. Title deed for each site showing ownership, site area and boundaries. Photographs of each site and adjacent properties. Detailed surveys of each site showing contours, and all site features. Design drawings previously prepared.
3.2 Establishment of a Key Stakeholder Committee A key stakeholder committee was established in Mission Beach. This group was broadly representative of the Mission Beach community and included engineers expert in the operation of local public pools in both Shires, Councilors from both Shires, a town planner, a representative of the local school, a Rotarian representative of the local business community and representation from the community group MBARC that has been the community advocate in establishing an aquatic centre in Mission Beach. ARGO briefed the members of this group in public aquatic centre design possibilities and the committee in turn briefed ARGO in the needs and desires of the community. 3.3 Site Inspections Each site was investigated by the group on two separate occasions. The first was to gain familiarisation with each site and discover adjoining opportunities and potential problems; the second visit was to test the draft master plan established for each site. ARGO visited each site three times, the third being during the master planning process to ensure that the layouts optimised all the sites’ potential and to reconsider site specific information. 3.4 Community Consultation Significant community consultation over the last few years led to the formation of the Mission Beach Aquatic and Recreation Club (MBARC), which represents the community’s interest in developing an aquatic centre. The development of an aquatic centre has proven to be both D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 3 of 10 12 May 2004
Shires priority facility through independent consultation and also through recent community surveys. The past and current need for an aquatic centre is well documented in Customer Connection’s recent Feasibility Study. In the site selection process, community consultation was undertaken to gain feedback about master planning issues on each individual site and to allow for extra and final community input into the site selection decision. To facilitate this, a public meeting was held at the Mission Beach Primary School one evening to discuss the draft master plan and show an aquatic centre design presentation. Approximately thirty people attended this meeting including the newly elected Mayor of Cardwell Shire and several Councilors. Information was discussed regarding each site and specific design issues were considered including noise generation from the site and visual amenity (including fencing) of any proposed facility but especially at Rotary Park. These issues have been acknowledged and will be incorporated into the design of the final facility. 3.5 Site Visit Program The program for the three day site selection process in Mission Beach was as follows: Day 1 Morning: Afternoon: Evening: Day 2 Morning: Afternoon:
Day 3 Morning: Afternoon:
Meet with committee and involved parties and inspect the three possible sites. (2 to 3 hrs). Workshop with committee to refine the brief. (3 to 4 hrs). Argo prepared draft master plans for each site. (6 hrs)
Meet with committee and re-inspect the three sites while reviewing the sketch master plans. (2 to 3 hrs). Workshop with committee (1 hr). Presentation to a Johnstone Shire Council meeting. (30 min to 1 hr).
Committee Workshop (1 to 2 hrs) to determine the preferred site. Presentation to a Cardwell Shire Council meeting. (30 min to 1 hr). (2 to 3 hrs) with committee to discuss the facility and make a final site visit to the preferred site.
3.6 Decision Making Process Once all available information on each site had been assimilated, each issue regarding each site was analysed and ranked for importance as follows: 1 2 3
Not very important but worth considering. Important but not essential to the outcome of the decision. Of critical importance to the outcome of the decision.
These weightings (1,2 and 3) were used as multipliers when adjusting the assessment of each issue that needed consideration for each site.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 4 of 10 12 May 2004
Once this was established, each issue was discussed thoroughly by the committee and each site was given a score from 1 to 5 to determine how well that site dealt with that issue. The scale was as follows: 1:
The site does not deal with the issue at all and this would be a liability if the project proceeded on this site. The site does not deal with the issue very well; however, the issue could be resolved or neutralized or the issue is not considered problematic enough for this to be of critical concern. Neutral effect. The issue is irrelevant to the site or the issue is neither a pro or con for the site. The site deals with this issue adequately or well and this is an advantage for this site. The site deals with this issue extremely well and this is an important factor in the selection of this site.
2:
3: 4: 5:
Each site was given a score under this system by consensus of the committee and the results produced a clear ranking of preferred location for the aquatic centre. Once this assessment was known, each member of the committee was invited to make an open and honest assessment of each site’s potential and to rank their site preferences independently of the process described above. This allowed for any aberration in the process to be discussed and adjusted if it was considered reasonable. The result of this process was that the committee confirmed the process and the outcome.
4.0
SITE ISSUES As described in the methodology, each issue was given a ranking by committee consensus. Many of the issues had overlapping concerns and it was considered by the committee to eliminate coincident issues where possible but to allow coincident issues where other matters associated but not parallel had to be considered. The issues considered, by ranking are as follows. 4.1
Issues of high importance •
•
•
•
Site area, future expansion. It was agreed that the facility should be developed in stages for capital cost and ongoing feasibility reasons. The ability of each site to accommodate staged growth over a period of 10 to 20 years was considered. Specifically, whether the sites had any room for expansion and whether the site could accommodate the immediate facility needs. Shared infrastructure. Some sites had existing infrastructure that would be of use such as power, water supply, car parking, sewerage and toilet blocks. The ability to share this infrastructure could reduce the capital cost of the facility. Visibility to passing users. It was considered important to ensure the facility had high visibility, especially to passing tourist users to maximize visitors. Passing trade on foot and in vehicles was considered. Impact on adjacent neighbours. Adjacent properties were considered in the site selection and the effect the noise generating areas of the facility would have on them and the increased numbers of people in the area and the visual impact the facility would have on them. Issues such as noise problems, increased commercial activity and blocking of existing views were considered.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 5 of 10 12 May 2004
•
•
•
• •
•
•
4.2
Visual amenity of and from the site. Each site was assessed in terms of its visual appeal. Whether the site provided a pleasant outlook or not and what the facility would do to the visual amenity of the area. Land fill, site preparation. Each site was considered in regard to the nature of the existing ground and proposed ground levels and whether the site needed to make special preparations for the installation of an aquatic centre. It was discussed that firm original ground was important and that engineered fill would be unsuitable. Pools in engineered fill would need to be piered and beamed into firm original ground. Microclimate. Each site was considered in relation to its own specific climate. Salt spray, high wind exposure, breezes, sun angles and shade were all considered. Site Features. Each site had specific features to be considered such as slope, trees, drainage, level and views. Site specific operating cost issues. Issues that impacted on the ongoing operational costs of each site were considered including maintenance from leaf fall, salt spray, supervision (staffing) costs, and heating. Site specific capital cost issues. Each site was considered in terms of the impact it had on the capital cost of the project. Issues included: substructure of buildings and pools (footings), excavation and cave-in issues regarding soil types, backfilling and formwork costs, access to existing services, access to existing infrastructure including car parking, Access to tourism funding. A large Federal Government tourism fund was recently announced, which promised to provide grants to regional projects, which support tourism.
Issues of medium importance •
•
•
•
•
•
•
Equity of location. Access to the median population is important to ensure equity of access. A facility located close to the population centre will ensure that the community is equitably served. Future demographic population trends were also considered. Access via foot and car was discussed. Primary School accessibility. It was considered important to consider easy access to the school considering the pupils are a primary user. Access to State Government Education Department Funding. Easy access by foot is a prerequisite to obtaining funding from the Education Department. Cost of travel by coach to MARC’s Park was discussed. Removal of trees. Rotary Park site requires the removal of trees to install pools. The impact on the environment and general amenity was discussed. Adjacent attractors. It was discussed that better visitation could be expected to a facility located adjacent to other attractions. Attractions include the beach, restaurants, parkland and play equipment, the Monster Markets, Sporting events etc. Existing car parking issues. Some sites have existing car parks, which can be utilised by the aquatic centre. Some have existing car parking problems, which will be compounded by an aquatic centre. Existing landscaping and shade. Rotary Park and MARC’s Park both have existing landscape including shade trees, which will be useful in the proposed facility.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 6 of 10 12 May 2004
•
4.3
Issues of low importance •
•
•
•
•
• •
5.0
Conflict with existing uses. Conflicting adjacent use was discussed including impact on residential property. Clash of usable area for car parking and displacement of annual events and play equipment.
Serviceability. Planned access for service vehicles to deliver goods, chemicals etc and remove rubbish and their impact on adjoining properties. How easy it will be to maintain a facility with consideration for leaf fall and salt spray. Does service access allow for distribution of filtration and pumping equipment to minimise ongoing electrical and chemical costs. Buildability. Does the site cause problems with construction such as allowable space for builder’s yards during construction; and issues in relation to foundation or site preparation. Egress in emergencies. Does the site allow for easy and rapid evacuation of the facility in an emergency? The shape of the site and approach roads will dictate the location of the entry. Are emergency vehicles able to gain access readily? Access. Is the site positioned and shaped to allow easy car parking arrangements that allow close parking to the entry? Can pedestrians and cars be separated on the site in the car park? Is extended pedestrian access into the community sensible and easy? Public land ownership. What is the land ownership status? What are the government controls over each site in terms of planning approvals (esp. zonings) and what impact does this have on project timing? Ground water levels. Are ground water levels significant to construction and ongoing operations? Space for overflow car parking. In the event of major events, large overflow car parks are required to handle the extra demand. Sites and their immediate surrounding areas were considered in relation to their ability to absorb these extra vehicles.
SITE SELECTION MATRIX After several days of deliberations and discussion. Half a day was set aside to discuss in detail each issue as it related to each site. The following matrix shows the outcome of these discussions. The ratings of each site and issue were determined by the committee as follows: Issue Site area, future expansion Shared infrastructure Visibility to passing users. Impact on adjacent neighbours Visual amenity of and from the site. Land fill, site preparation Microclimate. Site Features. Site specific operating cost issues. Site specific capital cost issues. Access to tourism funding. Equity of location Primary School accessibility. Access to Education Dept Funding.
Rating 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 3x 2x 2x 2x
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 7 of 10 12 May 2004
Rotary 2 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 5
Giufre MARC’s 5 4 3 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 1 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 2 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 1
Removal of trees. Adjacent attractors. Existing car parking issues. Existing landscaping and shade. Conflict with existing uses. Serviceability. Buildability. Egress in emergencies. Access. Public land ownership. Ground water levels. Space for overflow car parking. Tally (rating x site score)
2x 2x 2x 2x 2x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x 1x
1 5 4 5 3 5 3 3 5 3 4 5 235
5 3 3 3 5 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 198
5 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 221
This matrix showed that the Rotary Park site was clearly preferred over MARC’s Park with the Giufre site being least preferred. Each site is only separated by a margin of 6 to 12 percent from the one below. This is a true reflection of the closeness of the decision and difficulty the committee had in determining the true priorities of this facility.
6.0
SUMMARY – DECIDING FACTORS Though the decision process revealed a close contest, it was agreed by all committee members that in balance, the Rotary Park site served the community best for the following reasons: • • • • • • • •
The location was prone to greater use by the local community and tourist due to its visibility and accessibility. The site was the most beautiful and had the greatest potential to generate urban landscape that reflected the character of Mission Beach. The site integrated into existing leisure usage along the beachfront including the proposed skate park, parklands, surf and restaurants. The location would support better repeat usage by locals and tourists than the other sites and better ensure ongoing income to the facility. The site had the highest chance of attracting tourism grant money. Shared infrastructure (toilet block and car parking) was optimised at this site. Closeness to the school was optimised. Existing landscape and shade were optimised.
Issues of concern for Rotary Park included: • Loss of amenity for adjacent long-term rental properties immediately across the road. • Visual amenity on the beachfront. • Coastal erosion issues. • Tree removal. • Future expansion. In balance, the committee believed that the primary objective of the community was to have swimming pools suitable for leisure and recreation over and above a straight sports facility (refer Feasibility Study) and the benefits of having the aquatic centre adjacent to other sporting venues such as tennis, cricket, soccer and Australian Rules Football were overtaken by the Rotary Park site’s benefits of being adjacent to leisure and recreational facilities such as the skate park, beach, parkland and play equipment and restaurants. The proposed facility includes a 25 m lap pool; however, aquatic leisure and recreational uses are dominant.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 8 of 10 12 May 2004
In addition, it was considered that repeat business from school children riding bicycles and walking to the facility after school was more likely at Rotary Park and considering that this typically represented around 65% of the total gate revenue, could not be dismissed. Tourists in search of a place to swim were also believed to be better served by locating the pools close to the beach even though they would all probably see the facility if it were located at MARC’s Park. This is because the tourist destination of Mission Beach is currently the beach and that even in stinger season, tourists would always travel to the beach if only to walk along the shore. Having a destination site rather than just a visible site was considered important. Giufre site was considered carefully in regard to its location and potential; however issues such as proximity to many residences and the council’s proposed planning policy to quieten the access road to deter traffic to the beach made it less desirable. The town planning department had organised the site to be set aside in the greater Giufre development as a future proposed aquatic centre and to deliver the site to council for this use at no charge. This was not seen as any more beneficial to the community than any other site and the need to fill the land level above the current wetland was seen as a real engineering problem for swimming pool structures which historically have not been successful on engineered fill unless they were substantially piered and beamed back down into the firm original ground. This was considered possible but an expensive option. Comments were taken into the discussion that the developer had offered to benefit the council financially if this site was selected. Advice regarding the zoning of each site showed that Giufre’s site and Rotary Park were best placed for immediate approvals, whereas MARC’s Park required a Material Change of Use, which could add 6 to 9 months to any procedural requirements. MARC’s Park was considered a better site if the Mission Beach population had no limit and would expand to support a full aquatic sporting facility that included an Olympic (50m) pool, Diving tower and Water Polo pool. These larger facilities would service the greater region effectively; however, they could not be substantiated in the future due to the natural boundaries that limit population growth in Mission Beach; the National Park, beach edge and property size rules. Establishment of another aquatic sporting complex so close to the pools at Tully, Cardwell and Innisfail was also expected to jeopardize these existing facilities ability to generate income. The Rotary Park site was advised by the EPA as an erosion risk and they would not outright support this site on the basis that the council would defend the infrastructure should erosion commence by building a groin or revetment wall. As houses, roads and other recreational infrastructure already exist well within the same alignment along the beach, it was considered that this was a mute point as they would require effective defense even without locating the aquatic centre at Rotary Park. Additionally, the loss of healthy trees on Rotary Park site was considered in light of the type of tree to be lost. In most instances, the trees are gum trees and the issue of falling limbs and the subsequent liability issues for council in a public park were taken into account.
7.0
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION The committee selected the Rotary Park site because it was the best site on balance for the immediate to medium term community needs. Though not a clear winner, it was a popular site selection.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 9 of 10 12 May 2004
Our recommendation is: That both the Johnstone Shire Council and Cardwell Shire Council approve the selection of the Rotary Park site subject to: • •
EPA approval and funding,
so that further documents may be prepared to attract grants from State and Federal Government sources and so that the facility may be developed as soon as practically possible.
End of site selection report.
D:\RL web.design - Business File\Clients\MBARC.net.au\Site selection report.doc
Mission Beach Aquatic Centre – Site Selection Report Page 10 of 10 12 May 2004