What feels like years ago but is actually less than 12 months (4 July 2023), the General Manager of Glenorchy City Council abruptly closed the Glenorchy War Memorial Pool to the public until further notice. He has that authority as “person controlling the business or undertaking” under the Work Health and Safety Act 2012. His decision was based on an Inspection and Audit Report from consultants (Lacus Consulting) listing unacceptable risks to the health and safety of pool users, staff and contractors. The public learnt of his decision via a media release.

We’re told that an excessive loss of water was one of the triggers for commissioning the specialist assessment of the pool condition in the first place. While the report from Lacus did confirm “severe water loss in all pools”, it did not quantify or fully explain it.

Despite that, the agenda item (July 2023 Open Council Agenda item 10) gave a specific figure of 35,000 litres per day leaking from the pool, a figure that did not appear in the media release.

The agenda did not explain where that figure came from. And that gave the already angry and upset members of the public an easy target for their invective. Most of us can intuitively understand a leak and how leaks are fixed. Plug a hole, replace the pipe, fix the grout, replace some tiles, replace a washer, etc etc. Simple. No big deal.

It allowed them to virtually ignore all the other genuinely unsafe or dangerous issues at the pool, and focus on the “leaking” despite the fact that it played little or no part in the GM’s decision to close. It has been remarkable how few of the public questions to Council directly related to specific safety or health issues.

The “leaking” is primarily a financial issue, not a safety issue. It is extremely unlikely that the pool would have been closed indefinitely if “leaking” had been the only significant problem.

But it is still not clear whether there is one leak or many, where the water is leaking from and where it is going, and how the leaking can best be stopped or reduced. Council has since explained how it arrived at the 35,000 figure but made a bad mistake in gilding the lily by including it. There are already enough clear and indisputable public health and safety issues to justify closure.

The future of the Glenorchy War Memorial Pool site remains uncertain. While Labor and Liberal parties “promised” five million dollars to “repair” the pool, we will have to wait to see whether those promises are “core promises”.

While the management by the Council of the Pool has not been flawless, it is too easy to push all the blame for the current situation – a closed and empty pool – on Council.

A squeaky door gets the most attention they say. One reason that the pool has reached this stage is the lack of an organized body to lobby on its behalf. While the public have used the pool since its construction, fewer and fewer organizations have maintained a continuous connection with the pool. And fewer and fewer people have used the pool.

Sports clubs have a vested interest in the condition of the places they play and practice their sport. They also have an interest in the facilities attached to those places. Cricket clubs their grounds, yacht clubs their launching ramps, rowing clubs their pontoons, BMX clubs their tracks, bowls clubs their greens and facilities, tennis clubs their courts and facilities.

But the pool since the turn of the century has had no significant body lobbying on its behalf. Around that time the Hobart Aquatic Centre became fully operational, the chief swimming coach Chris Wedd at Glenorchy moved to Hobart, took most of his charges with him, and started a new club. The Glenorchy Swimming Club faded away without a strong purpose or strong leadership.

Those who have used the pool since then have enjoyed its availability but don’t appear to have contemplated the possibility that it might stop being available. While individuals may have thought about it, there was no organization to work for the pool.

A lobby group nagging Council or politicians can create friction, create some noise. And if they do that regularly then their facility will not be forgotten.

One good thing that may arise from the current situation is a single organized body. A body which:
• is democratic with leadership elected by its members,
• cares about the pool and its future,
• represents the interests of the individuals and groups using the pool,
• works with Council to develop long term plans for the pool,
• raises funds for improvements to the pool,
• actively promotes the pool as a recreational destination,
• provides volunteers to assist with pool operation e.g. mowing the lawns and keeping the premises clean, etc.

And there must be people in Glenorchy willing to take on leadership roles in that organization. If we depend on Council to create that body and keep it operating, we have failed.

So regardless of what we eventually see on the pool land, the existence of such a body is essential.

On Monday 18 March 2024 the Glenorchy Planning Authority (GPA) rejected a Development Application (DA) proposing a small business development on a private property almost at the end of Fairy Glen Road in Collinsvale. The vote was 3 for, 2 against – as close as it gets.

The rejection had in fact been recommended by council staff who were not persuaded by the conclusions of a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) commissioned by the proponent.

I should start by saying that virtually every member of the GPA said at some point that they felt “conflicted” as they decided how they would vote. Disagreeing with the recommendation of planning staff has historically been very rare. It can create difficulties later in the decision-making process. One is finding a planning expert willing to defend the GPA decision should the proponent or any representor decide to appeal.

Most of the “confliction” related to the safety of people driving along the single lane road (gravel-covered track?) which provides the only vehicular access to properties on Fairy Glen Road.

For most of its length, it winds along a steep hillside. The downhill side of the road generally has a soft verge, so much so that council has placed a load limit on vehicles using the road. That means that Veolia waste collection does not happen on this road.

For a 570 metre stretch of the road, there is nothing that could be described as a “passing bay”. Council staff made it very clear that the construction of anything along like a passing bay, even it were possible (which they doubt), would be extremely expensive. And attempting to pass on the soft verge is very risky business.

Clearly those who live in the eight or so residences along the road have found a way to cope with the limitations of the road. They have adapted. The proposal involved the use of a minibus to bring tourists to the development, ostensibly to reduce traffic. The more likely reason is to reduce the likelihood of tourists with no knowledge of the local circumstances having to deal with risky situations or poor road conditions.

Despite what you might hear from property developers, outright rejection of development applications is rare. There is in fact a slight positive bias toward development. Council staff will work hard to find ways to make development possible. Staff advise developers on aspects of a design that may be problematic. Staff will try to find a set of conditions to attach to the permit which make the development compliant.

In this case, the critical issue is the dangerous 570 metres; dangerous because of lack of passing, dangerous because of soft verges, dangerous because of slippery surface when wet.

In conclusion, providing the GPA decision is upheld on any appeal, this decision makes me wonder about the long-term future of Fairy Glen Road, residential or business. The arguments used for this DA could equally apply to any future development. A subdivision would introduce additional regulation. But suppose current residents proposed infill development inside their properties. How would the GPA react?

Council is between a rock and a hard place. As a public road, Council has responsibility for its upkeep. The current road infrastructure is substandard but Council does not have the funds or resources to make it standard. It would be unfair to expect current residents to move away; they seem in any case to have adapted. The most equitable approach is to leave the situation as it is but not allow further development that would make it worse, say by increasing traffic.

The map accompanying this post summarizes the results of the site inspection of problematic 570m. Source: p33 of meeting agenda.

The closure of the Glenorchy pool has touched a nerve for many who live here. There is a campaign underway to “Save The Pool”.

But the closure, along with the high cost of repair or replacement, as well as the annual $400k subsidy coming out of our rates, force us to give more thought to how we react, how we decide how to proceed.

Let’s start by looking at what the pool was for. Of course we go there to swim. But there is more to it than that.

It is a “memorial” pool. It was intended to remind us of sacrifices made in the two world wars. It’s doubtful that it does any more because in recent times most remembrance services have been elsewhere. There are memorial plaques in the pool but they get little attention. So couldn’t the plaques be moved to a more appropriate location?

And the pool has lanes designed for practice or competition. They were well used until just before 2000. There was an active swimming club based at the pool. But it seems the fate of the club was sealed when head coach Chris Wedd moved to the new indoor Hobart Aquatic Centre where he started the Hobart Aquatic Club. More recently it has only been the hardy few using the lanes for an energizing early morning swim.

In times gone by, schools used the pool for their annual swimming carnivals. But that has become rare as schools want to avoid the vagaries of the weather at the covered Hobart Aquatic Centre or private pools.

So do we need the lanes of a competitive pool? Does any replacement even need to be rectangular?

And many of those angry about the closure probably recall their younger days when they often used the pool in summer either with their parents, family, or friends – a place of recreation and social activity.

One more you may have missed, obvious but easily overlooked. The pool provided a way for people to cope with a hot day. Glenorchy, despite being beside a large river, has virtually nowhere outdoors where people can get relief from the heat. It now has none. Some might have noticed a modest water feature in the defunct proposal for the Montrose Bay. The Goodwood substitute has none.

So clearly the pool served a variety of purposes for a variety of different groups. And different groups will rank their importance differently.

In discussing potential futures for the pool, one useful approach might be to focus on each purpose, contemplate whether Glenorchy needs something in future to serve that purpose, then think about where and how that purpose might be addressed.

Currently the pool serves various purposes. It may well be that it makes sense to have purposes served in different places. Maybe there is something which is a dedicated memorial. Maybe there is no longer any need for a facility for lane swimming. Maybe we do not need a pool as such but a place for water-based recreation.

So I ask – why is the pool important to you?