URGENT

Email councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au and say ‘NO’ to rescission motion put by three councillors at a meeting on Wednesday 29 July 2026 that will resume construction at Norman Griffiths oval. This rescission is premature and financially irresponsible.

Email Ku-ring-gai Councillors (councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au) and tell them to wait until the costing report is released only a week later.

Ku-ring-gai Councillors’ synthetic project will cost us all dearly. To continue to pour over $20 million into what is already Australia’s most expensive soccer pitch financially reckless and councillors who vote for this must take responsibility for the fact that this will have ramifications for all Ku-ring-gai residents.

It is poor governance to stop the investigation already underway into viable and cheaper alternatives to this a synthetic field. It is also deeply undemocratic to halt the planned consultation of the Ku-ring-gai community about the preferred way forward.

The same Councillors who are calling for a halt into the planned investment into Marian St theatre in the name of fiscal responsibility need to explain to ratepayers why they are willing to pour millions more into the deeply flawed Norman Griffith project.

Please share with your networks   

•  Call on Councillors councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au to VOTE AGAINST the Rescission Motion and demand transparency for a $20.2M cost blowout
  
  
• In a move that will have serious consequences for Ku-ring-gai Council’s ability to maintain our infrastructure and fund other projects, a group of councillors have called an urgent meeting for next Wednesday 29^th to increase the budget for Norman Griffith oval synthetic development to over $20.2 million with the possibility of further increases.
  
  
•  This is a 650% blowout from its original budget of $3.1 million and comes just a week after residents have received a 29% rate rise.
  
  
• In a major turnaround from a decision made just over 10 weeks ago, Councillor Martin Smith, Jeff Pettitt and Sam Ngai have decided they can’t wait 6 days for independent expert advice on the best way forward for the upgrade of Norman Griffith Oval.
  
  
• Council commissioned NSW Public Works to cost alternative options for the synthetic project after it was revealed that after $12.2 million and 3 years of construction, they have to abort work and start again with a new design. (pp2,172). The flood detention system they built from aggregate is ‘unfit for purpose’ and council decided they needed to replace it with an expensive new concrete detention system to keep the synthetic oval flood free.
  
  
• One would think this would be a good time to assess the right road ahead given the huge expense and financial exposure the project entails. It is already Australia’s most expensive soccer pitch.
  
  
• In another backflip, they also propose to cancel the planned consultation they also voted for 10 weeks ago which they said was needed because:

“spending $20.2 million is far in excess of council’s initial budget for the Norman Griffith’s field upgrade and that the community may have formed a different opinion on a synthetic upgrade versus a natural turf upgrade had they known the total potential project cost”.

• Added to their chopping board is a planned investigation into upgrading ovals around Ku-ring-gai as properly-engineered natural turf fields – these ovals have been built at Lane Cove and Mosman Councils – they are cheaper and don’t have to be closed at the sight of rain! Watch the video ex Mosman Councillor and former Ku-ring-gai resident David Cook to hear how well they are working here at 1.20.
  
  
• This is a stunning about-turn especially from Councillor Jeff Pettitt who only last month voted for the project to be paused and reassessed.
  
  
• This is also no longer a debate about synthetic versus natural grass fields. This is about how Ku-ring-gai’s money should be spent and how decisions are made around spending it.
  
  
• Councillors are behaving as if they have a bottomless pit of revenue for a synthetic pitch and ignore the fact that financial decisions on the Norman Griffith project have serious ramifications for other projects.
  
  
• For example, the same group of councillors (Smith, Pettitt, Ward, Devlin, Ngai, Wheatley) have also just walked away from saving Marian St Theatre for $100,000 on the basis of needing to uphold ‘fiscal responsibility’ and because of “multiple competing capital priorities’! Ku-ring-gai doesn’t have a performing art space and in direct contrast to the Norman Griffith funding, this money was in the budget!

What can you do? YOUR VOICE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE

Write to Ku-ring-gai Councillors councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au

Write to Ku-ring-gai Councillors at councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au 

Ask them why they won’t wait for the review and don’t want to hear from the community about how our money should be spent.

Speak Up!

Speak Up! Come to the public forum on Norman Griffiths expenditure at 6pm on 29 July 2026 register HERE

The proposed motion to go ahead without waiting for the independent Public Works report and keep pouring money into the synthetic oval at a cost of over $20.2 million can be found here.

Information about the Norman Griffith oval development found here. Join Norman Griffith for All facebook page for regular updates.

Suggested email points to make:

• Ask Councillors councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au why they aren’t letting the process should run its proper course and wait for the expert report to at least examine viable alternatives first before pouring more money into the project.
  
  
• Ask them what happens when the costs keep escalating!
  
  
• How is spending over 20 million on one single suburban oval good value for money? Multiple ovals could be upgraded for this price.
  
  
• If you or your kids play/ed soccer let them know that this is not about being anti sport, this is about making decisions on independent advice.
  
  
• Ku-ring-gai residents have never been asked whether they prefer synthetic versus natural option at the oval – council’s last survey basically asked residents ‘would you like the current bog hole or would you prefer synthetic!’ 
  
  
• If you feel strongly about this tell councillors you will not vote for them in the next election if they go ahead with this expenditure for a project that is yet to be costed and before alternatives can be considered.

Questions and Answers

Haven’t they examined alternatives to synthetic before?

• Council previously investigated alternatives based on building on their now aborted previous design (aggregate flood detention system)  but have not examined the difference in price between synthetic and natural turf now they need a new concrete detention tank to flood-proof their synthetic option.
  
  
• It is highly likely a best practice natural turf design will be quicker to build and less expensive because it won’t require a massive flood detention system.

Shouldn’t they stop delays and just get on with the job?

• Councillors have had to stop the project because the work they have done so far has been declared ‘unfit for use’.
  
  
• Given the major expense to keep going with synthetic, other options should be investigated that could be faster to complete and give the soccer club the hours they need while not shutting off the oval to passive recreation and with the environmental risk involved with the synthetic option. 

Read STEP’s statement:

Norman Griffiths Oval: rescission motion is premature and financially irresponsible

Norman Griffiths Oval: Council’s rescission motion is premature and financially irresponsible

The rescission motion put by three councillors at a meeting on Wednesday to resume construction at Norman Griffiths oval is premature and financially irresponsible. Please tell them to wait until the costing report is released only a week later.

Email: councillors@krg.nsw.gov.au

Public forum: 6 pm, Tuesday 28 July (click here to register)

Background

On 18 May Ku-ring-gai Council resolved to engage a qualified independent expert:”To provide an updated cost comparison of delivering a best practice natural turf field at Norman Griffiths Oval compared to a synthetic turf field. This report will provide minimum and maximum construction cost estimates to complete the project with the two alternate surfaces. To report to the [18] August 2026 council meeting.

Rescission motion

The document release requirements for meeting papers is a week plus 6 days before the meeting, namely 5 August.However, at the proposed extraordinary meeting on 29 July three councillors are seeking to rescind the decision made on 18 May.This means that the report will be available 7 days after the extraordinary meeting.It is irresponsible to be making such as important decision without the fiscal information to back it up.

Why is there such a rush?

There is uncertainty about several aspects of the financial comparison that are crucial for a decision about whether it is wise to jump straight into proceeding with construction of a synthetic surface. The natural grass option may be much cheaper.

• Given the past increases in cost, as documented in the May resolution, there is a good chance that the cost of the synthetic option will be more than $20.2 million. Detailed design work has not been done on the huge concrete tank that is now required to provide adequate stormwater retention. Council was advised that the current installation using a thick layer of blue metal aggregate would be inadequate.
  
  
• In regard to the natural turf option, it is not clear that the mega concrete tank will be required so costs could be a lot less. Council has made no attempt to clarify this aspect. Stormwater can permeate through the natural grass slowly while the water will run off rapidly over the impermeable synthetic surface.
  
  
• If the synthetic turf project goes ahead it will cost another $10 million over what has been spent already. This means that funds are not available for other important projects like rebuilding the Marion Street theatre.
  
  
• The rescission motion also goes against the recognised need for community consultation (point G of the resolution below).
  
  

Text of the Ku-ring-gai Council Resolution passed on 18 May 2026:

Financial accountability

A.  Council notes that spending $20.2 million is far in excess of council’s initial budget for the Norman Griffith’s field upgrade and that the community may have formed a different opinion on a synthetic upgrade versus a natural turf upgrade had they known the total potential project cost.


B.  Council notes that the project has been the subject of eight successive budget revisions: $3.1M (2021), to $3.3 million (Nov 2022), to $4.3 million (Nov 2023), to $4.7M (Feb 2024), to $5.1M (May 2024), to $6.9million (Feb 2025), to $12.4 million (September 2025) to $20.2 million (April 2026). The NSW Public Works report indicates that costs may be higher.


C.  Council pauses the current project.


D.  Council engage NSW Public Works or another suitably qualified independent expert to provide an updated cost comparison of delivering a best practice natural turf field at Norman Griffiths Oval compared to a synthetic turf field. This report will provide minimum and maximum construction cost estimates to complete the project with the two alternate surfaces. To report to the August 2026 council meeting.


E.  Council fulfill the OLG’s instructions on the requirements of Sections 10 and 11 of the Capital Expenditure Review Guidelines, as per the letter dated 18 May 2026. To report back to Council by August 2026.

Community mandate

F.  Council notes that council does not have a mandate to spend the scale of additional funds on this project and should consult the community before committing to further expense. 


G.  Council conduct a representative (not opt-in) resident survey through an external agency with a budget of $30,000: 


(a)  Work with the agency to design the research to provide a clear guide to councillors on resident preferences on a surface for Norman Griffiths Oval


(b)   Providing comparative high level information on costs, benefits and risks to seek informed decision-making. This can be based on existing information available to council, including the updated costs in point D, and limitations pertaining to costing health and environmental risks.


(c)   Report the findings by the October 2026 council meeting.

Financial accountability

H.  Council provide the estimated cost to update two additional ovals with best-practice natural turf to enable increased usage across fields. Staff are to recommend best suited ovals. To be reported to the August 2026 council meeting.

July 2026