KPS Oval Discussion Paper FINAL 20140525 · The objective of this paper is to present long term...

Discussion paper for KPS oval works Page | 1

Discussion paper on options for the

KPS Oval

Prepared by:

KPS Building & Grounds Committee

May 2014


Executive Summary

Overview

The last time the Kew Primary School (KPS) oval was in excellent condition was 2009. The

Building the Education Revolution (BER) related works in 2010-11 detrimentally affected the

condition of the oval and other KPS issues have since taken priority over oval maintenance.

In 2013 Grade 6 student representatives proposed fundraising for a running track to the Acting

Principal. The Acting Principal supported this request, and 40 per cent of the necessary Funds

were raised for a running track in 2013 through a student-organised lapathon and very

generous donations from KPS families and the Bendigo Bank. These funds have yet to be

used.

Given this fundraising, the general state of disrepair of the oval and ongoing maintenance

requirements, the KPS Building & Grounds Sub-Committee (B&G) have prepared options for

consideration by the school community.

Objectives

The objective of this paper is to present long term options for the oval to ensure it is a space

that caters to the educational needs and extracurricular activities of KPS students, to enhance

physical literacy and give both boys and girls an equal opportunity to use the oval for both

passive and active play.

The oval occupies a large space and key considerations for both KPS and the school

community include environmental, health and social impacts alongside sporting needs,

physical education curriculum criteria, passive use and a desire to maintain green open

spaces.

Considerations

B&G have investigated a range of options and present research undertaken for the three most

relevant at this stage. B&G are open to other options which may end up warranting a similar

level of investigation at another stage. All options are being considered in relation to broader

school priorities, fundraising and a long term, holistic plan for the oval including:

• Scope

• Costs (Capital, Maintenance and projected 15 year cost)

• Construction time

• Case studies

• Lessons learned

Health, social and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass are also paramount.

Options for consideration

1. Natural grass oval

2. Install a synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds

3. Install a synthetic running track with synthetic infield and natural grass and landscaped

surrounds

Next Steps

A Community Forum will be held in the School Gym on 11 June 2014 to obtain feedback for

consideration by KPS and the School Council. This document provides important background

information that should inform the discussions at the Forum.


Table of Contents

Introduction – history .................................................................................................................................. 4

Future state – objectives, considerations and options ............................................................................... 6

Health, environmental and social impacts .................................................................................................. 7

Option 1 – No additional action ................................................................................................................ 13

Option 2 – Renovate natural grass oval ................................................................................................... 14

Option 3 – Synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds ........................ 17

Option 4 – Synthetic running track with synthetic infield, and natural grass landscaped surrounds ....... 19

Cost comparison ....................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 1 – Further reading ................................................................................................................... 26


Introduction – history

Recent history

In 2008 the oval was in worse condition than now due to a lack of ongoing maintenance.

An external sporting club was willing to pay for a new synthetic oval at no cost to KPS

including a fence around the oval, night lighting (subject to Boroondara approval), and all

maintenance and upkeep in return for exclusive access outside school hours.

Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) approval is required for

this type of arrangement however the School Council decided to stay with grass.

In 2009 grass restoration works occurred following fundraising of $15,000 by the Parent

Teachers Association. The restoration works was an 18 month process involving reseeding,

fixing of sprinklers etc. The oval was closed for 6 months, and the oval was in perfect condition

at the end of the period.

During 2010/11 the Principal agreed to give site access across half of the oval for the Building

the Education Revolution (BER) building works. This had a significantly detrimental effect on

the state of the oval and inadequate remediation works in 2011 and minimal watering lead to

further deterioration.

Since 2011 other KPS issues have taken priority over oval maintenance.

KPS Oval prior to BER works - 2009


Current history

In 2013 Grade 6 student representatives proposed fundraising for a running track to the Acting

Principal. The Acting Principal supported this request, and 40 per cent of the necessary funds

were raised for a running track in 2013 through a student-organised lapathon ($9,100) and

very generous donations from two KPS families ($15,000 and $1,000) and the Bendigo Bank

($11,000). KPS has partnered with Studley Park Kindergarten to be eligible for the Bendigo

Bank grant. In return the Kindergarten would hold its sports day at KPS. This arrangement

would also help facilitate the Prep transition program.

The $36,100 raised is yet to be spent.

Given this fundraising, the current poor state of the oval and ongoing maintenance

requirements, the B&G committee have prepared options for consideration by the school

community.

Current state – KPS oval 2013


Future state – objectives, considerations and options

Objectives

The objective of this paper is to present long term options for the oval to ensure it is a space

that caters to the educational needs and extracurricular activities of KPS students, to enhance

physical literacy and give both boys and girls an equal opportunity to use the oval for both

passive and active play.

The oval occupies a large space and key considerations for both KPS and the school

community include environmental, health and social impacts alongside sporting needs,

passive use and a desire to maintain green open spaces.

Key considerations

B&G have investigated a number of options for the school oval and has considered the

broader health, social and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass. As part of

background research and data gathering, the Committee’s teaching staff members have

provided input. B&G has reviewed the Victorian state government’s Department of Planning

and Community report into artificial grass surfaces which incorporates evidence based

research and guidance notes.

B&G has conducted a telephone survey of City of Boroondara primary schools and members

have visited schools in Cranbourne and Doncaster to gather data on their experiences with

different playing surfaces. A number of Boroondara schools have invited School Council

members to visit their facilities.

Options for consideration

As a result, B&G have prepared information on the following three options:

1. Natural grass oval

2. Install a synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds

3. Install a synthetic running track with a synthetic infield with natural grass and landscaped

surrounds

The three options each consider:

• Scope

• Costs (Capital, Maintenance and projected 15 year cost)

• Construction time

• Case studies

• Lessons learned

Before presenting the information on these options, a comparison of the broader health, social

and environmental impacts of natural and synthetic grass follow to establish the larger context

for these three options.


Health, environmental and social impacts

The following tables provide a comparison of the two surface options: natural grass and synthetic turf, and include B&G’s (KPS) response to

each identified issue where relevant. This material is drawn from the Western Australian state government’s Department of Sport and

Recreation’s Natural Grass vs. Synthetic Turf Decision Making Guide, available at http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/synthetic-turf

These tables summarise aspects associated with each surface.

A. Health impacts of the playing surface

Natural Grass Synthetic Turf

Injuries

Due to the limited reported research to date on injuries on the latest versions of synthetic turf, there is little consensus on whether the risk of injury is greater than on

natural turf surfaces.

Abrasion/friction – Burns, abrasions, and grazes

Issue KPS response Issue KPS response

Usually only a problem for injuries

when the ground has become bare

and dry. This can be avoided with

good management practices.

A maintenance and upkeep

programme is important

Most fibres are relatively non-abrasive so

the choice of infill is critical, sand based infill

will be more abrasive than rubber but rubber

can cause friction burns if sliding is a

characteristic of your sport.

Rubber infill will be used

Experience and education around

appropriate play will address in part the

sliding element

Heat


Grass dissipates heat and naturally

cools the environment so there is

rarely a heat-related injury on natural

grass.

Have heat policies in place to

counteract heat-related injuries.

Agree

In place currently

Synthetic turf surfaces appear to create an

increase in the heat island effect above the

surface, which has implications for heat–

related injuries, particularly in junior players.

The selection of a heat-resistant fibre and a

non-black infill will help reduce the risk of

heat-related injuries.

Surrounding landscaping will reduce

impact

Need school heat policies and education

awareness


B. Social impacts of the playing surface

Natural Grass Synthetic Turf


Cooler feel particularly in summer Agree Warmer and subject to glare when sunlight

is present

Surrounding landscaping will reduce

impact in summer, may be positive

outcome in winter

Softer and more forgiving Requires maintenance to ensure

consistent surface

Consistent surface Helps improve dexterity, coordination,

raise athletic potential of students and

community

Variable quality depending on the

soil type and maintenance regime

Maintenance important to avoid

dust, mud

Needs to be rested – must be part

of maintenance plan

Consistent quality

Durable and low maintenance

More likely to be used by all students with

diverse interests and activities

Expand scope for school sporting events,

including interschool events

Maintenance program includes vacuum,

roll and level rubber infill

Working bees will support leaf removal

activities

Traditional and served the various

sports well for many years

Agree Modern and innovative product Opportunity for greater range of sports

with permanent line markings e.g. hockey,

soccer

Third generation product so no risk from

early adoption of a new technology

Natural and calming feel Agree Artificial and unnatural feel Surrounding landscaping must be integral

Pleasant smells e.g. freshly cut grass Potential source for hay fever Strong odour particularly for synthetic turf

with rubber granule infill

Known example where smell was only

temporary

Visually appealing if well maintained

Note importance of maintenance Visually appealing as it looks ‘green’ all of

the time

Provides good impression of school to the

local and school community

Problematic in winter when wet, in

summer when dry; girls will not

use if wet and muddy

Suitable in many types of weather

conditions

Girls and boys likely to use equally on wet

days


C. Broader environmental impacts of the playing surface (water, carbon, material)

Area Natural grass Synthetic turf

1. WATER Issue KPS response Issue KPS response

Usage Requires significant amounts

of irrigation for growth.

Reliant on mains and

sprinkler system or

excavation for

underground tanks (cost

not investigated)

Annual maintenance of

sprinkler system

Drought conditions will be

an issue.

Does not require irrigation for growth, some

watering required for maintenance of

specific types of synthetic turf

Watering only required when very hot to

cool down surface

Stormwater

capture

Provides for natural infiltration

of water through the soil

profile reducing runoff.

Agree Inhibits natural infiltration of water increasing

runoff (synthetic turf can include drainage

systems to compensate for their inability to

take in water and capture and storage

systems that can harvest rainwater for re-

use).

Spoon drains will remove run off and will

connect into stormwater. Harvesting could

be future option.

Runoff

Water

Quality

Potential for nutrient/chemical

leaching from pesticide and

fertilisers into waterways if

not managed carefully.

Maintenance contractor

would be responsible for

managing this issue.

Require herbicides and

fertilisers.

Potential for leaching of heavy metals and

other residues from synthetic material and

rubber infill

KPS B&G have consulted with suppliers

who have done research and development

to monitor materials used to find more

efficient manufacturing and installation

methods, as well as being involved in

research projects looking closely at

recycling old Astroturf and developing

100% recyclable products for the future.



2. CARBON Issue KPS response Issue KPS response

Carbon

footprint

Carbon emissions generally

come from the installation

and maintenance stage

(fertiliser production, mowing

and lawn management).

Tends to have lower carbon

footprint over entire lifecycle.

Proper maintenance will

require fertiliser, mowing,

aerating and slicing with

mechanical equipment

Carbon emissions come from the

processing, production, transportation,

installation, maintenance and disposal

stages. These material impacts over the

entire lifecycle significantly increase the

carbon footprint

Reduce bus use for offsite sports activities

(also cost reduction)

Carbon sink Helps remove carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere through

photosynthesis and stores it

as organic carbon in soil,

making it an important carbon

sink.

Agree Does not have the ability to remove carbon

dioxide from the atmosphere

Plan to plant more vegetation and grass

surrounds



3. MATERIAL Issue KPS response Issue KPS response

Manufacture

Natural product grown from

seed. Requires water and

chemical inputs in the form

of fertiliser and pesticides

for growth and quality.

Contractors cannot

control for weather, use

etc. so no guarantee

equivalent to synthetic

supplier

Reliant on mains water

unless tanks installed

Petro-chemical product which uses mostly

virgin materials, some of the materials can

be made from recycled content(e.g. rubber

granules infill and shock pad)

Organic materials prohibitively expensive.

Rubber compound is recycled product

Transport Natural instant lawns have

short shelf lives and can

only be transported shorter

distances, or they are

planted from seeds which

have minimal transportation

costs.

Prices received for both

instant lawn and seed

Generally speaking synthetic turf is

transported long distances (even if it is

supplied by a local company the

manufacturing of the product is often

performed overseas) resulting in high

transport cost.

KPS B&G have consulted with suppliers

who have done research and development

to monitor materials used to find more

efficient manufacturing and installation

methods, as well as being involved in

research projects looking closely at

recycling old AstroTurf and developing

100% recyclable products for the future..

End of Life Natural grass does not

have a definitive end of life

however may be replaced

to enhance the current

surface. Disposal is not

normally required.

Note ongoing

maintenance costs to

ensure no end of life.

Ends up in landfill where it takes a long time

to break down. High disposal costs.

Contractor responsible for disposal one

supplier is undertaking research into

recycling.

Soil Natural grass improves the

soil by stimulating

biological life and by

creating a more favourable

soil structure.

Agree Heavy compacting of the soil before

installing synthetic turf damages soil

structure, soil microbes and soil life.

Agree



3. MATERIAL

(continued)


Dust

stabilisation

Well maintained grass

captures dirt and dust from

the atmosphere.

During severe drought

periods and tight water

restrictions natural grass

can deteriorate and dust

may become an issue.

Requires ongoing

maintenance and

expenditure on water

Covered surfaces are effective dust

stabilisers and synthetic turf will provide dust

stabilisation even through drought periods.

Agree

Heat

dissipation

Natural heat dissipation.

Heat is absorbed by turf

grass. Cools the

surrounding environment.

Agree Heats the surrounding environment. Can be

uncomfortable and unsafe in hot weather

conditions.

Heat reflection. Absorbs and radiates heat.

Colour of the synthetic turf may influence

the level of reflection.

Requires school heat / high temperature

policy

Surrounding landscaping should offset

impact on Performing Arts, other buildings

are reasonable distance away

Proposed colours: brick colour running

track, green infield

Noise Grassed areas present an

irregular soft surface which

makes them effective at

reducing noise levels.

Agree Synthetic turf fibres absorb some noise but

not as much as natural grass.

Surrounding landscaping will offset impact

Glare Natural grass assists to

soften and reduce reflected

light, lessening glare.

Agree High levels of glare can be created from

sunlight and floodlight depending on the

type of surface used.

Surrounding landscaping will offset impact

Floodlights a possibility and must be

directed away from Pakington St

Biodiversity

and Habitat

Provides natural

environment for organic

biodiversity in the soil.

Agree No organic biodiversity due to compacted

base and synthetic surface.

Agree


Option 1 – No additional action

Overview

Retain grass oval and continue to mow and water.

Key considerations

Scope

Oval will continue to receive minimal maintenance.

Costs

Capital cost

Cost $0

Annual maintenance cost

Mowing, fertiliser; service irrigation system [water is a proportion of $4,500 2013 cost]

Cost: $1,400

Funds to cover maintenance cost: Grounds and Oval Maintenance voluntary contribution

Projected 15 year cost

Cost range: $21,000 [plus water cost]

Lessons learned

Observations

• Oval becomes patchy with minimal maintenance, especially in front of goals

• Irrigation system requires annual service to ensure all sprinkler heads work

Considerations for KPS

• Rotating goals

• Water efficiency test for irrigation system

• Understand expectations for the quality of the grass cover in the school community versus

the costs of other options

• No action will allow fundraising for other projects


Option 2 – Renovate natural grass oval

Overview

a) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas.

This option could include repairing the grass in front of the goals, mowing and watering.

This is considered a lowest cost solution but does not address the whole oval.

or

b) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass

This option requires full grass restoration works similar to 2009.

Key considerations

Scope

a) Limited remediation of surface. Possibility to lay instant turf to repair 300sqm of oval in

front of goals.

or

b) Preparation including re-levelling, supply and laying of turf for full oval – approx. 3,000sqm

of oval. This would include a full irrigation audit.

Costs

Capital cost

a) Preparation and lay 300sqm instant turf and roll

Cost $5,800

or

b) Irrigation audit plus 3,000sqm turf reconstruction

Turf rolls: $56,400

Reseed: $35,800

Cost $36,000 - $56,000


Mowing, fertilising, weed spraying, slice and aerating, rest for one week either side of school

holidays, move/rotate position of goal posts; service irrigation system.

Cost: $17,000 – $24,000



Cost range: $264,000 – $384,000

Construction time

a) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas

One week for installation, plus roping off the renovated areas for two weeks during spring

OR four weeks during winter


b) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass

Option 1 (turf rolls): One week for installation, oval closed for four weeks

Option 2 (reseed): 6 weeks construction, 8 to 12 weeks for grass to grow in (depending on

weather); close oval for one week either side of school holidays (ongoing)

Option 3: rolling annual maintenance program which incorporates renovation (refer Table

1 below)

Table 1: Annual grass maintenance program

March - June Apply herbicide to control weeds

Over-sow with rye grass for winter

Aerate

October Herbicide to remove rye and other grass

December Slice and aerate

Line plant Kikuyu sprigs

Apply fertiliser and wetting agent

January Top-dress and fertilise

March / April Fertilise prior to winter (may not require over-sowing again)

Case Study: State Primary Schools in City of Boroondara

School which has regular oval maintenance program by school maintenance team

Note: This School also has an additional play area of synthetic turf that provides a soft play

space if the oval is under repair


School where maintenance is limited to mowing and watering.

Lessons learned

Observations

• Natural grass requires maintenance including watering all year around to ensure a

consistent surface.

• Natural grass benefits from periods of rest


• Externally contracted maintenance of natural grass estimated annual cost quoted up to

$24,000.

• School management challenge of closing oval to rest for one week on each side of each

school holiday period

• Raised funds potentially need to be reimbursed as they were collected on premise of a

running track


Option 3 – Synthetic running track with natural grass infield and landscaped surrounds

Overview

Install a four lane running track, with natural grass infield and surrounds.

Key considerations

Scope

Installation of a four lane running track, including a base of crushed rock, compact binding

layer and synthetic turf. Level and resurface grass infield.

Costs

Capital cost

Cost range:

Running track $70,000

Grass infield $36,000 - $56,000

Cost range $106,000 - $126,000


Natural grass: mowing, fertilising, weed spraying, slice and aerating, rest for one week either

side of school holidays, move/rotate position of goal posts; watering cost

Synthetic running track: brushing, vacuuming and spreading additional infill (sand or rubber)

Cost range: $17,000 - $24,000



Cost range: $395,000 - $522,000

Construction time

Option 1 (turf rolls): One week for installation, oval closed for four weeks

Option 2 (reseed): 6 weeks construction, 8 to 12 weeks for grass to grow in (depending on

weather); close oval for one week either side of school holidays (ongoing)

Option 3: rolling annual maintenance program which incorporates renovation


Case Study: Catholic Primary School in City of Boroondara

Running track only, grass infield.

Lessons learned

Observations

• If infield is not maintained, surface can become muddy, dusty and inconsistent

• Running track lanes need to be an adequate width and should avoid angled turns


• The grass infield will require an ongoing maintenance program to ensure it is kept up to

standard.

• The grass infield levels over time may drop to being lower than the track. This could lead to

water pooling and muddy areas of the grass as the track will restrict the water flow away

from the middle.


Option 4 – Synthetic running track with synthetic infield, and natural grass landscaped surrounds

Overview

Install a four lane running track, with synthetic grass infield and natural grass surrounds. The

size of the synthetic field can be varied from 77m x 40m to 55m x 40m, depending on available

funds (a smaller field could limit the type of athletic events that can be held at school). A length

of 65m would seem optimum and then allow opportunities for ground rental from outside

sports clubs.

Key considerations

Scope

4 lane running track with synthetic grass infield, concrete spoon drains including drainage to

storm water, tournament surface i.e. longer pile to suit soccer, new AFL and soccer goals and

long jump pit. Variety of line markings to suit other sports e.g. hockey, soccer.

Landscaping around the perimeter (not costed).

Costs

Capital cost

a) Running track with 3,000sqm infield

Cost $255,000

or

b) Running track with 2,000sqm infield

Cost $183,000


Brushing, vacuuming synthetic surface and spreading additional infill (sand or rubber)

(Note: does not include maintenance of landscaping around perimeter)

Cost: $2,000



Cost range: $356,000 to $510,000

Construction time

Oval closed for two months


Case Study 1: State primary school in Cranbourne

Concrete curb edging to support spoon drains Maintain grass surrounding the oval, longer pile

infield. Note maintenance of natural grass surrounds and trees.

Case Study 2: State primary school in Doncaster

Spoon drains, running track, longer pile infield, anchored soccer goals


KPS synthetic turf: options for different lengths

Synthetic turf oval and running track configuration


Lessons learned

• Significant initial capital cost of synthetic surface

• Surface can last between ten and fifteen years

• Importance of landscaping around perimeter

Table 2: Observations from other Schools

Location Observation KPS response

East Kew PS Synthetic turf installed from fence to

fence/building

Large space that could contribute to a

heat bank

Water pools as does not drain through

Need to keep dogs off

KPS oval length will be restricted to allow

for natural grass open spaces at either end.

As the oval does not border any buildings

there will be enhanced airflow around the

oval.

KPS oval has approx. 2% gradient fall that

supports water run off.

Balwyn PS After heavy rainfall, water was pooling

alongside the ground

Large expanse of ground

Limited architectural or landscape link

to main school or play grounds

1st generation installations had turf in the

spoon drains. Current design is for

concrete spoon drains.

Design is not to encroach on full oval but to

have landscaped ends incorporating

passive play areas, viewing seating /

mounds and playground equipment.

The oval is linked to open play spaces

through the middle school play equipment,

the new sand pit and at the southern end

the OSH club and performing arts building.

St Bede’s PS Wall to wall synthetic turf

Long jump pit located close to oval

entrance and therefore sand was

spread around pit and oval

Refer above for landscape design.

The draft plan is to locate the long jump pit

on the Pakington Street side away from

heavy traffic areas.

St Agatha’s Open space with natural grass around

the synthetic oval.

Trees kept along oval fence lines

This good design element can be

incorporated at KPS.

Other

Boroondara

schools

No heavy vehicle access

Do maintenance in house rather than

paying for contractors recommended

by or associated with installers

Tree roots can cause surface to lift

Surface can sink in places

Pile gets clogged and flat

Research undertaken identifies root barrier

as method to limit surface lift.


Cost comparison

To date B&G have sourced quotes from three natural grass suppliers, two synthetic turf and

two running track providers to better understand the cost and construction implications.

Running track

Quotes vary depending on the quality of construction and surface.

To date two separate quotes have varied from $44,000 to $70,000

Capital Cost $44,000 - $70,0001

Annual Maintenance $2,000

Grass options

a) No additional action

Annual Maintenance $1,400 [plus water]

b) Retain grass oval and repair existing damaged areas

Capital Cost $5,800

Annual maintenance $17,000 – $24,000

c) Retain and restore the whole oval with new grass

Turf rolls: $56,400

Reseed: $35,800

Capital Cost $36,000 – $56,000

Annual maintenance $17,000 – $24,000

Synthetic turf oval with running track options

a) Running track with 3,000sqm infield

Capital Cost $255,000


b) Running track with 2,000sqm infield

Capital Cost $183,000


Tables 3, 4 and 5 and Charts 1 and 2 below show the cost calculations for the initial capital

cost and annual maintenance over 15 years.

1 Note that cost calculations have used $70,000 quote.


Table 3: Natural grass repair options

Surface Oval

Running

track

Annual

maintenance

15 year

costs

Natural Grass repair

300sqm $ 5,800 N/A $ 17,256 $ 263,440


3,000sqm turf $ 56,405 N/A $ 17,256 $ 315,245


3,000sqm reseed $ 35,750 N/A $ 24,000 $ 395,750

Rolling maintenance

of Natural Grass $ 17,915 N/A $ 17,915 $ 268,725

Chart 1 - Natural grass repair options

Table 4: Natural grass plus Running Track options

Surface Oval

Running

track

Annual

maintenance

15 year

costs


3,000sqm turf (1) $ 56,405 $ 70,000 $ 17,256 $ 441,245


3000sqm reseed (2) $ 35,750 $ 70,000 $ 24,000 $ 521,750

Rolling maintenance

of Natural Grass (3) $ 17,915 $ 70,000 $ 17,915 $ 394,725


Table 5: Synthetic turf plus Running Track options

Surface Oval

Running

track

Annual

maintenance

15 year

costs

Synthetic Turf 1

3,000sqm $ 198,265 $ 70,000 $ 1,900 $ 510,417

Synthetic Turf 2

3,000sqm $ 254,772 $ 1,900 $ 486,130

Synthetic Turf 3

2,000sqm $182,733 $ 1,900 $ 356,459

Chart 2 – Oval surface options with running track comparison

Other cost considerations include:

• Opportunities for revenue from hiring to outside groups e.g. to cover maintenance costs or

build a cash reserve for future replacement.

• Longevity of surrounding landscaping will be increased if ball games occur on infield

• Smaller infield dimensions provide opportunity for larger landscaped areas at each end

• Reduced bus hire costs for off-site activities


Appendix 1 – Further reading

Artificial Grass for Sport Guide. Available at http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/sport/publications-and-

research/publications/community-facilities/artificial-grass-for-sport

Natural Grass vs. Synthetic Turf Decision Making Guide. Available at

http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/synthetic-turf

Date post:	14-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

KPS Oval Discussion Paper FINAL 20140525 · The objective of this paper is to present long term...

Documents