BEXLEY SWIMMING AND LEISURE CENTRE

FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

CAR PARKING ANALYSIS

COPYRIGHT TOMPKINSMDA ARCHITECTS

28 NOVEMBER 2011
BEXLEY SWIMMING POOL REDEVELOPMENT
ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

COMPARATIVE CARPARKING ANALYSIS

FOR AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRES IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29 JUNE 2011

INTRODUCTION

TompkinsMDA Architects was commissioned by Rockdale City Council to prepare a feasibility

study for the Redevelopment of Bexley Swimming Pool. Part of the feasibility study involves
consideration of car parking requirements for the proposed centre. There are currently 106 car
parking spaces and a turning area available at the western end of the existing Centre accessible
from Preddys Road.

In an earlier study, Tompkins MDA Architects, recognising that the car parking was likely to be
inadequate, identified, in conjunction with Council Officers, other car parking opportunities
adjacent the site. These consisted of the following:

1. 82 car spaces, being the residual of the existing car park after redevelopment of the site.
2. 132 car spaces at a higher level behind residential properties fronting Preddys Road.
3. 52 car spaces adjacent the Council Works Depot accessed off Highgate Street.

The capital cost of providing the 214 spaces in 1 and 2 above was estimated at the time to be
$1,131,000.

Recognising that the provision of adequate car parking will have a direct impact on the viability of
the proposed centre and its ability to compete with nearby Hurstville Aquatic Centre, Tompkins
MDA requested Council staff to identify the number of car parking spaces which would be
required. The response was that Council had no formal requirements for the type of development
and that an examination would have to be made of comparable centre in order to determine the
requirements.

To assist Council, TompkinsMDA have carried an analysis of carparking at existing aquatic and
leisure centres in NSW and where possible, identified the facility components, the pool water area,
the gross area of the facility, and the number of car parking spaces provided in each case.

The Aquatic Centres that were researched are:

Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre, Enmore, NSW (Marrickville Council)

Blacktown Leisure Centre, Stanhope Gardens, NSW (Blacktown City Council)
Emerton Aquatic Centre, Emerton, NSW (Blacktown City Council)
Hurstville Aquatic Centre, Hurstville, NSW (Hurstville City Council)
Ian Thorpe Aquatic Centre, Ultimo, NSW (City of Sydney Council)
Lane Cove Aquatic Centre, Lane Cove, NSW (Lane Cove Council)
Mount Annan Leisure Centre, Mount Annan, NSW (Stage 1 only) (Camden Council)
Peninsula Regional Leisure Centre, Woy Woy, NSW (Gosford City Council)
Ryde Aquatic Centre, Ryde, NSW (Ryde City Council)

In most of the centres, Councils had no stated requirements in their Development Control Plans
for this building type and a traffic report was generally provided with the Development Application
to determine the number of carparking spaces assessed as being required. Some Councils have
a carparking rate in their DCP for gymnasiums, fitness studios etc. This is generally in the order of
1/20 to 1/25 m2, but these rates are not necessarily applicable to aquatic facilities.

Important Disclaimer: The information contained in this report has been obtained by inquiry, online searches and from
original drawings of the Centres for which TompkinsMDA were the Architects and is believed to be accurate.
Notwithstanding this, TompkinsMDA do not warrant the accuracy of the study. In addition, the recommendations
contained here are derived by comparative methods only. TompkinsMDA Architects Pty. Ltd. are NOT traffic engineers
or traffic consultants and the recommendations made must be viewed in this context.

1001-2-0107-20110629MD-CAR PARKING ANALYSIS.DOCX

BEXLEY SWIMMING POOL REDEVELOPMENT
ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

COMPARATIVE CARPARKING ANALYSIS

FOR AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRES IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29 JUNE 2011

The RTA's Guidelines for Traffic Generating Developments also does not have any stated
requirements for this building type.

A traffic report, were one to be prepared, would logically be based on an assessment of how the
centre would be used during its day to day operations. For instance, the crche will only normally
have children in it whose carers are using the pools and/or the gymnasium. Likewise the kiosk,
sauna, steam room and perhaps the spa will only be used by people using the pools or the
gymnasium as well. The traffic report would also be based on a prediction of the likely number of
visitations and the peak demands.

For example, the Traffic Report for the recently completed Annette Kellerman Aquatic Centre in
Enmore Park stated that the peak demand would be in the order of 200 spaces. However the total
parking spaces provided is 180, most of it kerbside and a large component located remotely from
the Centre which is less than the peak demand. In this instance, due to the site constraints,
Council made a decision that to "provide parking spaces that cater for attendees most of time is
a more consistent and balanced approach to parking amenity and sustainability than providing
parking to accommodate peak times." Such an approach might justify approval of a Development
Application, but has the potential to impact on the viability of the Centre, since simply put, if
patrons find car parking to be a significant problem, they will migrate to facilities which are more
convenient and timely to access.

The redeveloped Bexley Aquatic Leisure Centre will compete with the Hurstville Aquatic Centre for
patronage. Hurstville Aquatic Centre is known to currently have inadequate parking. The provision
of adequate and even generous car parking at the proposed Bexley Centre will assist it to
compete favourably with the Hurstville Centre.

Important Disclaimer: The information contained in this report has been obtained by inquiry, online searches and from
original drawings of the Centres for which TompkinsMDA were the Architects and is believed to be accurate.
Notwithstanding this, TompkinsMDA do not warrant the accuracy of the study. In addition, the recommendations
contained here are derived by comparative methods only. TompkinsMDA Architects Pty. Ltd. are NOT traffic engineers
or traffic consultants and the recommendations made must be viewed in this context.

1001-2-0107-20110629MD-CAR PARKING ANALYSIS.DOCX

BEXLEY SWIMMING POOL REDEVELOPMENT
ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

COMPARATIVE CARPARKING ANALYSIS FOR AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRES IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29 JUNE 2011

CARPARKING COMPARISON TABLE

CENTRE INDOOR FACILITIES OUTDOOR TOTAL TOTAL NO. OF COUNCIL COMPLIANCE GROSS
FACILITIES WET GROSS CAR REQUIREMENTS WITH COUNCIL SQM PER
AREA BUILT SPACES CODE CAR
(SQM) AREA PROVIDED SPACE
WET DRY (SQM)

PROGRAMME POOL

SPA/SAUNA/STEAM

MULTIPURPOSE
TODDLER POOL

OUTDOOR 25M,

OUTDOOR 50M,
50M POOL

LEISURE POOL

SPORTS HALL
GYMNASIUM
25M POOL

CRECHE

ROOMS

POOL

POOL
CAFE
Annette 1050 3595 180 Marrickville Yes 20
Kellerman Council
Aquatic Centre, DCP
Enmore, NSW 4.5/100sqm GFA
(gyms/health/fitne
ss centre)
Blacktown 1220 7650 196 Blacktown City 39
Leisure Centre, Council -
Stanhope no stated
Gardens, NSW requirements
Emerton 2000 4670 175 Blacktown City 27
Aquatic Centre, Council -
Emerton, NSW no stated
requirements

Hurstville 1000 7230 247 Hurstville Council 30

Aquatic Centre, DCP
Hurstville, NSW 4.5(min) -
7.5spaces per
100sqm
(gymnasiums)

Ian Thorpe 1300 4660 96 City of Sydney - 49

Aquatic Centre, no stated
Ultimo, NSW requirements

1001-2-0107-20110629MD-CAR PARKING ANALYSIS.DOCX

BEXLEY SWIMMING POOL REDEVELOPMENT
ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

COMPARATIVE CARPARKING ANALYSIS FOR AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRES IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29 JUNE 2011

CENTRE INDOOR FACILITIES OUTDOOR TOTAL TOTAL NO. OF COUNCIL COMPLIANCE GROSS
FACILITIES WET GROSS CAR REQUIREMENTS WITH COUNCIL SQM PER
AREA BUILT SPACES CODE CAR
(SQM) AREA PROVIDED SPACE
WET DRY (SQM)

PROGRAMME POOL

SPA/SAUNA/STEAM

MULTIPURPOSE
TODDLER POOL

OUTDOOR 25M,

OUTDOOR 50M,
50M POOL

LEISURE POOL

SPORTS HALL
GYMNASIUM
25M POOL

CRECHE

ROOMS

POOL

POOL
CAFE
Lane Cove 1030 3785 78 Lane Cove 49
Aquatic Centre, Council - no
Lane Cove, stated
NSW requirements
Mount Annan 1180 4270 133 Camden Council No 32
Leisure Centre, DCP
Mount Annan, 1/25 sqm
NSW (gymnasiums,
Stage 1 only fitness studios
etc)
Peninsula 1570 7060 139 Gosford City No 50
Regional; Council
Leisure Centre, DCP
Woy Woy, 1/25 sqm
NSW (recreation facility)
Prairiewood 2140 2137 170 Fairfield City No 13
Leisure Centre, Council
Prairiewood, DCP
NSW 1/11sqm
(gymnasium)
Ryde Aquatic 214 Ryde City Council
Centre, Ryde, - no stated
NSW requirements

1001-2-0107-20110629MD-CAR PARKING ANALYSIS.DOCX

BEXLEY SWIMMING POOL REDEVELOPMENT
ROCKDALE CITY COUNCIL

COMPARATIVE CARPARKING ANALYSIS

FOR AQUATIC LEISURE CENTRES IN NEW SOUTH WALES 29 JUNE 2011

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Rockdale City Council does not have specific guidelines or controls applicable to the provision of
carparking for recreation centres, nor are there any guidelines from the Roads and Traffic
Authority NSW.

A meeting was held with representatives of the YMCA on 6 June 2011, during which time
estimates of the likely annual attendances achievable were provided depending on the facility mix.
The final number of car spaces provided will depend on a final determination of the facilities to be
included in the proposed centre and the estimated visitations per annum.

TompkinsMDA Architects recommend that the number of carparking spaces provided for the
Bexley Pool Redevelopment should be based on the estimated number of visitors and the peak
demands generated by the proposed facility and/or a rate of 1 space per 25 square metres of
gross building area.

This recommended rate of provision is comparable with a rate of 1 space/32m2 at Mount Annan
Leisure Centre, 1 space/30m2 provided at Hurstville Aquatic Centre, both of which are known to
be inadequate and 1 space/27m2 at Emerton Aquatic Centre which is thought to be adequate.

In any event, every effort should be made to retain the existing car parking provision of 106
spaces at Bexley, in the first instance, since the provision of additional car parking will be
particularly expensive due to the site constraints.

Additional car parking can be provided if required at a later date by expansion into the elevated
area behind the Preddys Road residential properties (132 spaces) and/or by adjustment of the
area adjacent the Council Works Depot accessed off Highgate Street (52 spaces).

TompkinsMDA Architects Pty Ltd

29 June 2011

Important Disclaimer: The information contained in this report has been obtained by inquiry, online searches and from
original drawings of the Centres for which TompkinsMDA were the Architects and is believed to be accurate.
Notwithstanding this, TompkinsMDA do not warrant the accuracy of the study. In addition, the recommendations
contained here are derived by comparative methods only. TompkinsMDA Architects Pty. Ltd. are NOT traffic engineers
or traffic consultants and the recommendations made must be viewed in this context.

1001-2-0107-20110629MD-CAR PARKING ANALYSIS.DOCX