Acknowledging the Deputy Mayor is seeking to move option 1, but has allowed me (as the local councillor) to move an alternative motion I move a motion based on Option 2 in our papers.

 

An alternative that I have already distributed to members in advance.

An alternative in keeping with my previous observations about this complex series of stand-alone projects.

It is my intent to do as much as we can for each of the user groups vying for the space vacated recently by the hockey club. To do this I believe each group should be prepared to compromise if this cannot be achieved without compromise by only one. In other words, I hope to accommodate the core needs of each group, as I see them.

Option 1 provides both Tennis SA and the Goodwood Cricket Club what we believe they are asking for. It does not however address the needs/wishes of the other user groups, be that of the Goodwood Primary School sports or other recreational users including but not limited to dog walkers.

Let me take advantage of recent line marking of this field in readiness for the winter school soccer season to demonstrate what is possible. This line marking, previously not available to us, clearly demonstrates what opportunities exist (or not). As of this weekend there are three east west soccer fields, one of which (the northern most) is a reduced length. There is also overlaid over the other two pitches a north south pitch.

This pitch is 66m in length by my measuring, which is short of the 75m minimum we have been led to believe is the maximum for the age group this pitch is aimed at. That said, I expect it is this length to accommodate the previously mentioned northern east-west pitch.

Now! Should option 1 be approved both the northern most school soccer east west pitch and the north south pitch would be lost.

The northern one because the length of the pitch would reduce to 63m which I suspect is too short. This courtesy of keeping both Tennis SA walkways. A length that I believe will compromise the viability of school sport.

Option 1 also limits the opportunity to be more precise in what we approve for the cricket nets. We are told that the Cricket Club wish to increase the number of concrete practice pitches from 4 to 5. This has stressed residents concerned about loss of open space. By my measurements on Friday this is not the case.

The existing 4 concrete pitches are 18.0m wide (or 4.5m each). We are told that they need only to be 3.5m wide. My research (via Google) reveals they are usually 3.05m wide. Interestingly the turf practice pitches average 3.1 m in width, as do the pitches on the oval. If we replicate the 18.0m that exists now we can provide the 5^th pitch. Arguably (at a pinch) maybe a 6^th pitch. In other words, without compromising our green open space.

Option 2 provides this opportunity.

By reducing the number of tennis walkways, the trespass into that north south pitch is reduced by 2.0m bringing it down to 65m. This is but 1m less than the current markings. This, a concession by Tennis SA.

Option 2 also allows us to be discerning about how many turf pitches are provided. We are told the club wants to increase from 6 to 10. My understanding is they would be happy with 8. If push comes to shove, they would accept (albeit grudgingly) the existing number of 6. My Option 2 provides for an increase to 8. An option, which added to the loss of one walkway, keeps their activity well away from the significant tree that we all want to protect.

Tennis SA’s concession provides the opportunity for the Cricket Club and the School to achieve most of their needs. Option 2 however seeks for both these bodies to also make concessions too.

The cricket club by reducing the number of turf pitches, keeping their facility further away from the tree. The school likewise by the loss of the northern east west pitch. That said, it would be possible if the north south pitch is not needed by senior grades. A smaller north south pitch can be laid over it, using cones, for junior grades.

By default, option 2 provides evidence (given the marking now available) that junior cricket can be held on this field. That is whether by the Cricket Club or the school. If one can, so can the other.

Beyond this, by restricting the loss of green open space to only that required by a reduced Tennis SA expansion, other users are less compromised. Indeed, I would suggest they are less compromised than they may believe. The space to the south of the southern goals will be not only re-opened for casual users, dog walkers and the likes but become more amenable to being used in that the southern end of the oval itself becomes available during cricket practice sessions something that is not available now.

A win-win-win-win by my assessment albeit with each making concessions.

 

PS    To see my motion to understand the nuances I promoted you will need to re-access the council webpage and look for the minutes of the meeting.