On 5 February 2017, the Sydney Morning Herald story Sydney faces sports field shortage, states that synthetic fields have become popular because of “lower ongoing maintenance costs”. This is misleading.
The correct analysis should be based on lifecycle cost.
The Western Australia Department of Sport and Recreation in its Natural Grass vs. Synthetic Turf Surfaces Study Final Report concludes that the 25 year life cycle cost for AFL/Cricket (based on initial capital cost of $358,000 for natural and $1,565,000 for synthetic) to be: natural grass – $1,622,167; synthetic turf - $4,090,000. This is because synthetic playing fields need periodic replacing, whereas natural grass does not.
The WA report concludes by stating that “… this cost modelling also dispels the myth that synthetic turf has a lower cost in the long term.”
No matter what the costs, HPG strongly opposes the replacement of the natural grass at Middle Head Oval with a synthetic playing field on environmental, health, and public access grounds.
The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust was established as public recreational parkland to be eventually transferred into the Sydney Harbour National Park. Synthetic fields would convert recreational parkland into dedicated sports fields making them unsuitable for transfer to the NSW National Parks system.
Mosman Council, one of the wealthiest Councils in Sydney, has three of its own ovals. However rather than using one of its own ovals, Council is actually considering developing an open green parkland space which was dedicated and given to all the Australian people as a Federation gift in 2001.
ABOVE: Synthetic Field Construction Cromer Park, Northern Beaches. Stop This Happening on Middle Head!