Why is Ku-ring-gai Council unable to accept that Charles Bean Oval is on the edge of Lane Cove National Park and is not an appropriate place for a synthetic playing field? The current synthetic surface was installed 13 years ago when the seriousness of the environmental and safety risks were not well understood. Now much more is known about the characteristics of synthetic turf and the foreseeable impacts of climate change.

Bushfire risk should be a paramount consideration

The risks from the field’s location as category 2 bushfire prone land are now recognised. In addition the location at the end of a narrow road would make evacuation very difficult. It is not only soccer players that will need to escape; there are also the residents of all the apartment buildings and school children.

Council’s very own draft Climate Change Policy also recognises the risks. The principles of the policy include these statements:

Reduce current and future risks to the community and the environment by avoiding development in high-risk hazard areas (particularly those expected to be at greater risk from climate change), and/or incorporate appropriate measures to reduce the risk to an appropriate level in accordance with relevant guidelines and statutory controls (including utilising appropriate land zoning).

Consideration of climate change impacts be mainstreamed and integrated throughout council decision making practices and frameworks, with appropriate mitigation and adaptation actions integrated into all strategic and operational management activities.

The NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer’s Independent Review into the Design, Use and Impacts of Synthetic Turf in Public Spaces contains this recommendation:

R1.4  Risk assessments are undertaken, and synthetic turf fields are not approved in areas of high environmental risk. This includes bushfire prone areas and areas with a higher likelihood of flooding. Assessments and testing should be informed by relevant NSW government emergency response agencies as well as independent expert advice, including advice contained in this report.

At the very least, as a precaution, one would expect council to assess the risk by obtaining advice from the Rural Fire Service before bringing the next stage of the decision-making process before a council meeting. This would have made this important issue affecting the choice clearly defined. Instead, the meeting report for this general business item downplayed the issue by saying that council will conduct a risk assessment if it proceeds with a synthetic field.

How can that work if the risk is assessed as unacceptable when the alternative of natural grass has been dismissed? Would council then have to go through another round of assessment, report writing, consultation and meeting processes?

What was in the staff report?

The staff report that was included in the agenda of the meeting on 16 June provided a confusing inconsistent array of information.

It argued that community surveys were in favour of synthetic but they were conducted on an opt-in basis that allowed the soccer clubs to encourage their members to respond and they were conducted just prior to the school break up at the end of 2025.

The environmental and health issues raised were given little emphasis.

The costings estimated that both surfaces would cost similar amounts but there was no allowance for the cost of replacing the synthetic turf at the end of the calculation period.

Reports from experts on synthetic fields and natural grass on likely experience of playing hours and capacity were summarised as demonstrating that natural grass capacity would be 50% less than synthetic in winter months. The information did not support this conclusion as it was a jumble of statements about playing hours and player capacity that were inconsistent.

Public forum on 9 June

Speakers at the public forum were mostly highly critical of the staff report and advocated the use of natural grass. The comparisons of playing capacity were meaningless because proxies of the number of register players or booked hours were used instead of actual playing hours and demand. There was no recognition that the mostly casual recreational use by the school was very different to soccer competition and training so the demand for playing hours could be discounted. Several children who attended the Lindfield College highlighted the discomfort, especially in warmer months, of using the field as their main area for play.

The conclusion that the community surveys were in favour of synthetic was criticised because they were not representative.

What was decided at the meeting on 16 June?

The meeting resolution was:

Engage NSW Public Works or another suitably qualified independent expert to provide a cost comparison of delivering a best practice natural turf field at Charles Bean 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.

Make a decision on the type of playing surface for Charles Bean Oval when the independent costing is reported back to council.

STEP’s view

The response to concerns about bushfire risk in the staff report and the council resolution is inadequate. This approach is fundamentally flawed, because it treats bushfire risk as something to be considered after a preferred surface is chosen, rather than as a core criterion in the comparative study itself. A genuine comparative study must assess, side by side, how each surface performs in a bushfire prone context, including the practicability and cost of mitigation measures, so councillors can see which option is inherently safer and more appropriate for this site.

We don’t know what the terms of reference are for the independent assessment. If it is based purely on relative cost it will not be assessing the full picture. We hope it will include clear, consistent and justified assumptions about playing hours.

When the report comes before council again there must be due consideration of bushfire and other environmental risks.

Threats to human and environmental health

Plastics are pervasive in our environment. The impact on seabirds that have been found to have large quantities in their gut is well documented. The impact of microplastics (plastic pieces less than 5 mm) on human health and the environment is still the subject of much research. It is clear that their presence in our soils and waterways will make it inevitable that they will affect the organisms that live in these environments and be transferred into food chains.

Microplastics can contain toxic additives used during production (including PFAS and endocrine-disrupting substances), but can also absorb pollutants such as heavy metals and pesticides from their surroundings, later releasing them into the environment. It is inevitable that the grass blades of synthetic turf will break off and be carried into the environment.

Microplastics have been shown to affect soil microflora and fauna and are linked to reduced crop production. Microplastics affect organisms at lower trophic levels, reducing their growth, productivity and availability as prey for higher consumers up the food chain. Similarly, microplastics are increasingly recognised as a potential threat to human‑health. They have been detected in drinking water, food, air and a range of human tissues and organs, indicating exposure through multiple pathways and the potential for accumulation. Microplastics can act as carriers for chemical additives and environmental contaminants that have the potential to trigger immune responses, inflammation and oxidative stress. While long-term impacts are still uncertain, current evidence provides clear cause for concern and supports efforts to limit microplastic release into the environment.

Reference

Do We Have a Microplastic Problem in NSW Coastal Waterways?

Recent research in NSW

Concern about the increasing prevalence of microplastics in the NSW environment has been confirmed in two recently published studies. They should raise awareness within community of the scale and spread of microplastic contamination.

The studies have been carried out in order to establish a baseline about the distribution and prevalence of microplastics. Consistent and detailed monitoring is essential to understand where and how these pollutants accumulate in the environment. Robust baseline data will enable the effectiveness of future management and policy action to be measured over time.

First study: EPA broad scale microplastic assessment of NSW estuaries

This study covered the period 2021–24. It sampled 120 catchments across the state and failed to find a single body of water free from microplastics. Scientists conducting the assessment scooped water from the top 15 cm of water and filtered it through a sieve to see what synthetic treasures they could find.

The majority of the pollution observed falls into three categories:

• fragments: broken down bits of harder plastic items, like bottles or containers
• film: small pieces of soft plastic from plastic bags or packaging
• foam: the small balls that make up foam cups, insulation and packaging

The major results were:

• Microplastics were detected in all 120 waterways, with concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 34.80 particles per cubic metre.
• Highest contamination was found in urban waterways in the Hawkesbury–Sydney region, including Cooks River, Dee Why Lagoon and Upper Parramatta River.
• Northern Sydney waterways within the top 10 hotspots were Middle Harbour Creek, Dee Why Lagoon and Manly Lagoon.
• Lowest contamination was found in minimally disturbed catchments on the state’s north and south coast – Myall Lake, Nadgee Lake, Middle Lagoon, Myall Broadwater and Wallaga Lake.
• Smaller particles (<1 mm) dominate accounting for 68% of particles.
• Items like packaging foam and pellets point to traceable sources and therefore are considered priority items.

Prevalence of synthetic turf

Of particular note is the North Shore data which showed a disproportionate amount of one plastic: synthetic turf blades. In Middle Harbour, a quarter of the contaminants were fragments of fake grass. At Manly Lagoon it was 56.5%. In comparison, the state-wide proportion of plastic grass was 5.5%.

The report recommendations included the targeting of priority sources, namely:

• foam packaging – regulate or phase out
• artificial turf fragments – containment and phase out
• pellets (nurdles) – enforce handling and containment

References

Broadscale Microplastic Assessment of NSW Estuaries: Report Card 2021–24

Broadscale Microplastic Assessment of NSW Estuaries: Technical Report 2026

Second study: AUSMAP, the Australian Microplastic Assessment Project

The AUSMAP report published in 2026 was titled Do We Have a Microplastic Problem in NSW Coastal Waterways? The report covered seven years of data collected by over 5,000 individuals. It reveals persistent microplastic hotspots sites and the most prevalent microplastic types infiltrating our waterways.

Using a standardised sampling method combined with the power of citizen science, AUSMAP has mapped pollution hotspots, characterised dominant microplastic types, and supported local action through councils, schools, and community networks. The samples are taken from sediments along the waterline edges of estuaries, creeks and beaches.

Consistent with the EPA study, Metropolitan Sydney was found to be the state’s primary microplastic hotspot area. Microplastic pollution has increased threefold since 2018.

In the 2018–21 monitoring period, microplastics averaged 306 particles per m² on Metropolitan Sydney shorelines. However, in the 2022–25 period there was an approximate three-fold increase in microplastics with an average of 1,004 particles per square metre.

This microplastic contamination occurs on Sydney’s coast, but on average is far greater in its estuaries, driven by the closeness to urban sources. Foam (polystyrene) and hard plastic fragments dominate, representing between 50 to 90% of all microplastics entering waterways, primarily via diffuse pathways such as stormwater. While less abundant, industrial resin pellets and synthetic grass fragments are particularly concerning as they represent point source preventable losses that highlight shortfalls in current management practices.

Action required

The report recommended a suite of actions, including:

•  further restrictions on single-use plastics
• regulation of synthetic grass to address crumb and blade loss into waterways
• mandatory adoption and enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep © principles to prevent industrial pellet loss, supported by compliance reporting
• integration of extended producer responsibility principles to ensure producers are responsible for the lifecycle impacts of their products, including microplastic loss, associated chemical additives and end-of-life management
• establishment of minimum standards for stormwater capture systems
• integrate microplastic data into local planning and coastal zone management strategies

Reference

Do We Have a Microplastic Problem in NSW Coastal Waterways?

There are already many synthetic turf fields at the edge of Lane Cove National Park:

• Lane Cove Council: two fields at Blackman Park, West Lane Cove
• Ryde Council: two fields at Christie Park, Macquarie Park and one field at Macquarie University near the end of Busaco Road
• Ku-ring-gai Council: Charles Bean Oval, West Lindfield and a  proposed field at Norman Griffiths Oval

Proposal for a third synthetic field at Christie Park

Ryde Council is now moving ahead with plans to add another synthetic field to Christie Park. The proposal is part of a masterplan that was adopted in March 2016. Stage 3 of the development of Christie Park would include a third synthetic football field, with undercover car parking for 300 cars and a potential fitness facility below the field.

Experience and scientific understanding of the impacts of using synthetic turf on playing fields has changed considerably since 2016. So there are strong reasons to question whether it is wise to proceed.

It appears that the only decision needed to be made by Ryde Council before the project can proceed is to amend the categorisation from ‘park’ to ‘sportsground’ of the land which would be occupied by the third synthetic sports field, entry plaza and accessible paths. This requires a consultation process whereby the public can make submissions. 

The closing date for submissions is 29 July.

In a further stage of consultation Ryde Council will be inviting community input that, as stated on the website:

… will play a valuable role in shaping the final planning and design of this much-loved community facility.

So feedback will be sought on a Review of Environmental Factors and Capital Expenditure Review.

The plan is for construction to commence in mid-2027 with completion by mid-2028.

Details of the project

Only concept diagrams have been released so far that show the location the new field that is to the south east aligned with the existing two fields. As the land on which it will be built slopes steeply towards the Lane Cove River it is necessary to build the field on a concrete platform. A car park will be placed underneath.

Environmental concerns

In addition to the basic concerns about the use of synthetic turf the location has additional risks. The response to these risks in the design of the field cannot be described until the Review of Environmental Factors is available. STEP will be looking at the following issues:

• management of stormwater from the elevated synthetic field that will flow into Lane Cove National Park
• runoff of chemicals and microplastics
• proximity to the Lane Cove River
• cumulative impact from another heat generating synthetic field
• impact of lighting on wildlife in the national park
• impact on the Powerful Owls whose nest hollow is about 500 m from the field

STEPs grant Research Grant for the Conservation of Bushland for 2026 has been awarded to Georgie Brennan, a PhD student at the Behaviour, Ecology and Evolution lab at the University of Sydney on the pollination behaviour of insects visiting flowers. She has provided the following description of her project.

I’m a PhD student with the BEE Lab at the University of Sydney.

My interest in pollinator behaviour began with Sydney’s stingless bee, Tetragonula carbonaria. They are one of our few native eusocial bee species and are considered generalist foragers. Many studies concerning bees as pollinators centre on the females, as they must actively collect pollen for their young. I aimed to instead assess the capacity for male stingless bees to transport pollen, as males must also visit flowers for nectar.

I found that not only do male bees carry pollen, but it is distributed on different parts of their body and carried for longer relative to females. I also found that their floral preferences may differ to that of their sisters; see paper here, DOI: 10.1007/s13592-026-01248-6.

This work led me to consider how differences in the flower-visiting behaviour among insects goes on to affect the flowers’ reproductive success. I was also interested in understanding how all these different behaviours may interact when insects forage simultaneously.

Plants with generalist pollination systems are common in Australia, especially among the Myrtaceae family, many of which can attract hundreds of insects when flowering. Unfortunately, generalist pollination systems are also very complex!

At present, I’m using the dwarf apple gum Angophora hispida as a model plant to observe pollinator behaviour. I will be filming foraging insects; assessing their behaviour while on the flower; and measuring the subsequent seed viability of their fruits.

Compared to insects, plants are a lot slower-moving. Learning how to conduct field-based experiments with them has been very rewarding and I’ve seen plenty of fascinating behaviours so far, which I’m excited to share!