Planning for Open and Recreational Space in High- Density Areas Report 2: The RAB Model

Abstract

Open space and recreation planning

Full text

Planning for Open and Recreational Space in High-
Density Areas
Report 2: The RAB Model
A.J. Veal, University of Technology Sydney
Awais Piracha, Western Sydney University
This report is the second of two project reports produced as part of the ‘Planning for Open Space
and Recreation in High-Density Areas’ research project in the NSW government’s Landcom
Roundtable collaborative research program. The researchers have made the reports available on
ResearchGate due to public interest. The research was funded by Landcom as a contribution to
the development of planning methodologies, but specific conclusions are not endorsed by the
agency.
November 2021, made available on-line: November 2023

2
Acknowledgements
This project was originally known under the project title 'Suburban to urban: planning for the
delivery of quality open space'. The project was jointly led by Adjunct Professor A.J. Veal of the
UTS Business School and Assoc. Professor Awais Piracha of the School of Social Sciences and
Psychology, Western Sydney University (WSU). Professor Lee Pugalis, of the UTS Institute for
Public Policy and Governance (IPPG), and Assoc. Professor Alpana Roy and Dr Cameron
McAuliffe of WSU were involved in discussions on the early stages of the project and Jordan
Taylor of IPPG provided research assistance for aspects of the Recreation Activity Benchmark
model. The Australian Sports Commission provided special tabulations from the AusPlay survey
for the Sydney Metropolitan Area. Feedback and input were received in the course of the study
from attendees at two Landcom Co-Lab seminars and at workshop presentations for Landcom
collaborators.
This independent research was funded through the Landcom Roundtable to find ways to plan for
open space and recreation opportunities in transport-oriented developments. Landcom notes the
findings as a contribution to the ongoing exploration but does not endorse specific conclusions.
Contact details
Awais Piracha Tony Veal
Associate Professor UTS Business School
School of Social Sciences and Psychology University of Technology Sydney
Western Sydney University Tony.Veal@uts.edu.au
t: +61 2 4736 0049
e: A.Piracha@westernsydney.edu.au
Citation
Veal, A J and Piracha, A. (2021). Planning for Open and Recreational Space in High-Density
Areas: Report 2: The RAB Model. University of Technology Sydney/Western Sydney
University.
See also:
Veal, A J, and Piracha, A. (2021). Planning for Open Space and Recreation in High-Density
Areas: Report 1: Guidelines Review. University of Technology Sydney/Western Sydney
University.
Veal, A J, (2020) Planning for open space and recreation. Australian Planner, 56(1), pp 37-47.
Veal, A J, and Piracha, A. (2020)‘Comments on ‘Part 1: Open space for recreation’ of the NSW
Government Architect’s Draft Greener Places Design Guide’. University of Technology
Sydney/Western Sydney University, June.
Veal, A J, and Piracha, A. (2022). A rational basis for planning for open space in high density
areas: The Recreational Activity Benchmark model. Australian Planner, 58(1-2), 63-68.

3
Contents
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Aim of the project .................................................................................................................. 5
2. Planning for Open and Recreational Space .................................................................................. 7
2.1 Functions of open space ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Physical recreation .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Active transport ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Visual amenity ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.4 Environmental ................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Categories of open space and recreation facilities ................................................................. 8
2.3 An approach to planning for open and recreational space ..................................................... 9
3. Open and recreational spaces planning for New High Density Areas ....................................... 11
3.1 Principles: general ................................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Principles: NHDAs .............................................................................................................. 11
3.3 The Recreation Activity Benchmark model ......................................................................... 12
4. Stages in implementing the RAB model ................................................................................... 15
4.1 Stage 1: Metro-area recreation activity volumes ................................................................. 15
4.1.1 Sport and other physical recreation activities ............................................................... 16
4.1.2 Informal recreation ........................................................................................................ 17
4.2 Stage 2: Typical NDHA: adjusted recreation activity volumes ........................................... 19
4.4.2 Liaison with host LGA .................................................................................................. 22
4.4.3 Alternative solutions ..................................................................................................... 22
4.5 Stage 5: Evaluation of solutions ........................................................................................... 24
5. Conclusions, developments and further research ....................................................................... 25
5.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 25
5.2 Further development ............................................................................................................ 25
Appendix 1: New High Density Area age-structure ...................................................................... 26
Appendix 2: Facility capacities and areas ...................................................................................... 27
Appendix 3 Further research possibilities ...................................................................................... 33
References ...................................................................................................................................... 35

4
Executive Summary
The aim of the Planning for Open and Recreational Space in High-Density Areas project was to
develop a planning method for open space and recreation in suburban areas which are being
transformed into new high-density areas (NHDAs), also known as Transit Oriented
Developments (TODs). These areas are transport nodes associated with major new infrastructure
investments, notably rail.
The NHDA environment presents particular challenges for planning for open and recreational
spaces due to a range of factors including the rapid pace of development, high density typology
and constrained sites, limited availability of private household open space affecting likely
demand for public open space; relatively high land cost, the need to accommodate the
requirements of a prospective residential population and the need to consider the recreational
plans and provision of the LGA surrounding the NHDA.
The first part of the project, detailed in Report 1, Guidelines Review, evaluated existing
approaches to open space and recreation planning and their suitability for planning in NHDAs. It
was found that most failed to adequately take account of the unique characteristics of NHDAs,
particularly the issue of density. The review recommends a combination of the performance
approach and the recreation participation approach .
In response, the Recreation Activity Benchmark (RAB) model has been developed and is outlined
in this report. The model concentrates on the projected benchmark volume of recreational activity
per week per 1000 population. It seeks to make provision for the same level of recreational
activity in NHDAs as exists, on average, across the Greater Sydney metropolitan area, subject to
demographic variation.
While the RAB model is proposed as a viable alternative to planning and achieving development
consent for open and recreational spaces in NHDAs, the report also makes recommendations for
its further refinement and development.

5
1. Introduction
1.1 Aim of the project
The Planning for Open and Recreational Space in High-Density Areas project is focussed on the
development of appropriate planning methods for open space and recreation in rapidly densifying
urban areas. These new high-density areas (NHDA), also known as Transit Oriented
Developments (TODs), present a unique set of challenges for the planning of services and
amenities such as open space and recreation facilities due to:
• rapid pace of development;
• high density typology and residential population;
• limited availability of private open space affecting likely demand for public open space;
• constrained sites;
• high cost of land;
• the need to plan for a primarily prospective population;
• the need to take account of the social, physical and political/administrative relationships
with the surrounding settled suburban areas.
The last of these points is illustrated in Figure 1, which indicates that NHDAs do not exist in
isolation: they are located within a local government area, which is in turn is part of a broader
region. Planning in such areas therefore needs to be closely linked with that of the local council,
which will typically have management responsibility for publicly owned open space and other
recreation facilities.
Figure 1 New high-density area: spatial relationships

6
In addition to this report, the project involved the conducting of a literature review of existing
open space and recreation planning guidelines. This is published separately as Report 1:
Guidelines Review. It establishes that existing planning approaches generally fail to adequately
take account of the unique characteristics of NHDAs, particularly the issue of density. The review
recommends the use of a combination of the performance approach and the recreation
participation approach. This is developed in this report.

7
2. Planning for Open and Recreational Space
2.1 Functions of open space
Open space plays a number of roles in urban areas including:
• Provision of space for physical recreation;
• Accommodating active transport (i.e., walking, cycling);
• Visual amenity;
• Contribution to the local natural environment including reducing urban heat effects,
increasing tree canopy coverage and providing wildlife habitat.
2.1.1 Physical recreation
Physical recreation can involve a wide range of activity from the most intense and formally
organised sport and exercise to informal, unorganised and relatively passive activity, such as
walking and picnicking.
The focus on open space also suggests a focus on outdoor physical recreation. However, many
physical recreational activities can take place both indoors and outdoors – for example,
basketball, netball, swimming, 5-a-side soccer and indoor cricket, and fitness and skills training
for individuals or outdoor sports teams.
One of the solutions to the land constraints of NHDAs is to provide for more physical recreation
activity in indoor facilities, that can be accommodated in the design of the NHDA built form.
To address the problems presented by NHDAs, the scope of the study therefore extends beyond
conventional public open space, to include in the planning process:
• indoor active-recreation facilities, such as gyms and indoor courts and swimming pools –
these could be part of mixed-use multi-storey developments, which may occupy floor-space
in mixed-use developments rather than being a discrete land-use category;
• provision of recreation facilities as part of public infrastructure, such as a component within
an over-station development.
It might also be argued that, since parks can accommodate cultural activities, such as concerts,
the study should also cover cultural activity planning. However, this is beyond scope of this
study. Cultural planning has its own methods and literature1 and adaptation for NHDAs would
need to be the subject of another study.
Traditional open space and recreation planning has tended to concentrate on assets that will be
managed by a local council. In the NHDA context, planning must take account of the full range
of potential opportunities, such as integration within private developments with the necessary
governance requirements to enable public use.
There are no formal boundaries between NHDAs and their host communities. Therefore,
appropriate demand analyses of the future community should take into account existing resources
in surrounding areas and likely two-way flows of recreational activity between the NHDA and
surrounding areas.
1 See Evans (2000).

8
2.1.2 Active transport
While transport is concerned with ‘getting from A to B’, it can at the same time function as
recreation. Walkers and cyclists who are active commuters, shoppers, etc., are gaining similar
health benefits to those engaging in the activity for recreational purposes. Therefore, in NHDAs
design and connectivity measures should be adopted to ensure amenities are as ‘walkable’ and
‘cycle-friendly’ as possible. This recreational element of the road system would then be counted
as part of the linear open space provision.2
2.1.3 Visual amenity
The measures recommended in the NSW Government’s Greener Places policy3 to maximise
opportunities to introduce greenery in incidental spaces in residential and commercial areas, are
even more important in NHDAs, given the shortage of conventional green open space.
It should be noted that, while open space used for recreation typically provides some measure of
visual amenity to non-users, or can be designed to do so, there are other forms of open space,
such as traffic roundabouts and median strips, and raised planted beds, which offer visual amenity
but not recreational access. This design-related matter is not pursued in this report.
2.1.4 Environmental
Other functions of open space, such as heat dispersion, wildlife habitat and eco-system
conservation and provision of storm water and overland flows also fall under the auspices of the
Greener Places policy. This function has not therefore been pursued in this project.
2.2 Categories of open space and recreation facilities
For the current project a typology of recreational provision has been developed suitable for the
conditions in NHDAs. In addition to types of outdoor spaces and facilities, it includes indoor
categories that can accommodate physical recreation activity.
The constraints of the typical NHDA environment, as discussed in Section 1.1 above, suggest that
the range, or ‘hierarchy’, of open spaces typically encountered in suburban areas will not
generally be available. The open spaces which do exist can be expected to play multiple roles.
The planning process should therefore be focussed on resources with potential recreational uses
rather than a rigid, pre-ordained, classification scheme.
For the purposes of development of a basic planning model in this report, the classification
system of facilities and related activities is nevertheless relatively conventional, summarised in
Table 1. This is developed further in Section 4.
2 This also means that participation data would need to be collected on non-recreational as well as recreational
walking/cycling, in the context of the ‘walkability’ idea associated with Transport-Oriented Developments.
3 NSW Government Architect (2017).

9
Table 1. Types of open space/recreation facility
Facility type
Activities
Outdoor
Linear routes
Walking, running, cycling
Playing pitches and ovals
(both grass & artificial surface)
Team sports (soccer, cricket etc.)
Courts (hard surface)
Basketball, netball, tennis – outdoor or indoor (large halls, see below)
Outdoor specialist
E.g., bowls, skateboard
Indoor
Indoor pool
Swimming
Multi-purpose hall: large
5-a-side soccer, tennis, badminton, basketball, netball, fitness training
Multi-purpose hall: small
Table tennis, fitness class, yoga, etc.
Indoor specialist
e.g., Gym/weight training etc. Squash courts, Ten-pin bowling alley
Parks
Informal recreation: e.g., picnicking, children’s play; some walking,
running and cycling (dealt with under ‘outdoor – linear’ above).
2.3 An approach to planning for open and recreational space
This discussion is concerned primarily with planning for quantitative aspects of open space and
recreation planning. The recreational effectiveness of open and recreational spaces also depends
on qualitative features, namely context and design. These are not addressed in this report but are
covered in the government’s Greener Places policy.
Numerous sets of guidelines for planning open and recreational spaces have been published by
national and state governments, industry and professional bodies and academics. However, such
guidelines are generally orientated towards planning in two types of environment: (1) local
government areas as a whole; or (2) greenfield development areas. They therefore tend not to pay
particular attention to the special conditions applying to NHDAs. As noted in Report 1:
Guidelines Review, the traditional approach to planning for open and recreational space involved
the adoption of national or state-based standards, expressed as either a prescribed percentage of
urban land (area-percentage standard) or a prescribed area of open space per 1000 population
(population-ratio standard). This approach has for some decades been criticised for its lack of
flexibility, its ‘one size fits all’ basis and its lack of a research basis.4 As Report 1: Guidelines
Review notes, the approach has been rejected in NSW government open space planning
guidelines.
Report 1: Guidelines Review demonstrates that the traditional standards approach is particularly
unsuitable for planning in NHDAs as it does not address the issue of population density. The
report identifies five existing alternatives to the standards approach:
• demand-based approach
• stakeholder consultation method
• catchment-access based standard
• performance-based planning
• recreation participation-based approach.
It concludes that a combination of the last two would be suitable for the NHDA context.
Performance-based planning, designed to replace traditional zoning of land-use, is based on the
idea of assessing developments on the basis of their performance on a range of key environmental
outcomes related to indicators such as noise or traffic disturbance.5 It featured in the federal
4 See Veal (2013) for a discussion of the doubtful origins of the traditional Australian open space standards.
5 While originally designed to assess individual development applications, the approach can be broadened to cover area-
wide planning.

10
government’s Australian Model Code for Residential Development (AMCORD) national
planning guidelines in the 1990s6. In the approach adopted here, recreation participation is a
performance indicator.
This links with the recreation participation-based approach to planning in which targets for
participation in recreational activity are set and plans are developed for facilities to accommodate
the target volume of activity7. The setting of participation targets for active recreation is now
included in plans for sport and recreation at national (e.g., Australian Government, 2018) and
state government (e.g., NSW Office of Sport, 2017).
The application of these approaches in the NHDA context is outlined in the next section.
6 See Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health, Housing and Community Services (1995)
7 This was based on the U-Plan system under development at the University of Technology Sydney, see: Veal (2017,
Chapter 9, pp. 176-202): ‘A participation-based approach to planning for leisure, sport and tourism’.

11
3. Open and recreational spaces planning for New High Density Areas
3.1 Principles: general
It can be argued that traditional open space provision standards were predicated on a regard for
spatial equity: that everyone, regardless of where they lived, should have a similar level of access
to outdoor recreational space. While this is a reasonable proposition in suburban areas, it has
generally proved impossible to achieve in high density areas. This gives rise to a need for a more
considered approach, involving examination of some basic principles.
Reasons for planning and providing public open and recreational spaces typically involve four
main motivations:
1. Health benefits which, while accruing to the individual, also benefit the community in general
through cost-savings in healthcare and enhanced economic productivity.
2. The ‘public good’ aspects of open space in the economist’s sense8, that is: residents, whether
users or non-users, benefit from the availability of open space that cannot be practically or
economically provided by the market.
3. Diversionary function of recreational services and facilities – particularly in regard to young
people.9
4. Sense of general well-being which can arise from availability of open space.
It should be noted that these benefits are related not only to the quantity of open space but also to
its quality and design.
3.2 Principles: NHDAs
Revisiting the issue of equity: the residents of NHDAs have the same rights to access to
opportunities for recreation participation as their fellow citizens in the rest of the community.
However, for practical and cost reasons, they cannot expect to have access to the same levels of
per capita provision of traditional open space in their immediate neighbourhood as residents of
lower density suburbs.
The use of the term ‘opportunity’ in this context can, however, be problematical. An
‘opportunity’ which is provided but is located, designed and/or managed in such a way that it is
not actually used, would be seen as having failed to achieve its intended purpose. It would not
have generated the intended benefits which justified the provision. In planning terms, therefore,
provision of ‘recreational opportunity’ is a means to an end, not the end itself. The end, or
purpose, is recreational participation. The goal of equitable recreational planning in NHDAs
should therefore be:
8 A ‘public good’ is a good, or service, which is: ‘non-excludable’ (people cannot be excluded from its use – e.g., street
lighting); and ‘non-rival’ (one person’s consumption of it does not preclude others consuming it – e.g., clean air). They are
therefore a form of ‘market failure’, i.e., cannot be provided by the market, and must be provided by collective action. Most
public open space meets these criteria in full or in part. See Veal (2017, pp. 98-99).
9. Diversion from anti-social behaviour - see Australian Government (2018, pp.18-19), Jesuit Social Services (2018).

12
To ensure availability of a quantity and quality of recreational facilities such that the
residents of NHDAs engage in recreational activity at least at the overall level of the rest of
the community, taking account of demographic characteristics.
It might be noted that similar equity principles apply to other public services which are likely to
be a feature of the overall planning of NHDAs.
The performance of the recreation strategy based on this principle would be the level of
recreation participation which results when the NHDA is fully developed and populated. The
performance benchmark would be provided by the overall level of recreation participation in the
community of which the NHDA is a part. In the current exercise the community concerned is
Greater Sydney. Data on levels of recreation participation for the metro-areas are provided by
regular surveys, such as the annual AusPlay survey conducted by Sport Australia.10
The benchmark participation rate should be modified to take account of the age-structure of the
planned population and dwelling mix as indicated by NHDA masterplan. Modifications would be
based on data on age-specific recreation participation patterns from the metro-area survey.11
The planning task is therefore to devise a strategy of provision which would result in a
benchmark participation level being met in the NHDA. The approach developed here to achieve
this has been named the Recreation Activity Benchmark (RAB) model.
3.3 The Recreation Activity Benchmark model
Two distinctive features of the RAB model are: first, the replacement of the traditional
population-ration or area-percentage standard with a recreational participation benchmark; and
second, the combining of indoor and outdoor recreation activity and facility provision in the same
planning exercise.
Regarding the replacement of the standard with the participation benchmark: the two models of
planning are represented in Figure 2. In the traditional ‘standards approach’ a population figure is
related directly to the facilities required via the ‘provision standard’ (Figure 2a). Not only is this a
‘one size fits all’ approach, the basis of the prescribed standard is typically unknown, as noted in
Section 2.3 above.
The RAB model principle, as shown in Figure 2b, makes the basis of the provision explicit: it is
to provide for a benchmark volume of recreational participation consistent with metro-area
norms.
10 Sport Australia, previously known as the Australian Sports Commission. Details of the AusPlay survey can be found at:
www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au/research/smi/ausplay. Tabulations of activity-specific participation rates were provided
by Sport Australia for this project. Current participation levels are used, but increased levels could be used, reflecting targets
put forward at federal (e.g., Australian Government, 2018, p.65) or state (e.g., NSW Office of Sport, 2017, p.4) levels.
11 The metro-area average recreation participation pattern is made up of varying patterns across a large number of suburbs
with varying demographic profiles. In practice, the modification to recreation participation rates has relatively little effect on
the overall participation level but affects patterns of participation among different activity types – for example more
organised sport and less recreational walking.

13
Figure 2. Approaches to open space/recreation planning
The inclusion of indoor facilities in the planning exercise is particularly significant in the NHDA
context and is likely to result in an increased emphasis on indoor provision and activity. This is
illustrated in Figure 3, which shows the same level of participation in recreation being achieved
in the NHDA as in a suburban area with the same population, but with a different combination of
indoor and outdoor provision.
It should be noted that indoor spaces for active recreation are typically capable of accommodating
many times the usage of an equivalent outdoor space because:
• they can be open to the public for much longer hours (for example 15 hours a day, seven days
a week) in all weathers;
• they are not subject to the level of ‘wear and tear’ constraints of grass surfaces;
• they can be actively managed for multiple and intensive use by on-site professional
management, generally as part of a multi-facility establishment.12
The diagram also suggests that in a NHDA, more non-traditional, that is hard-surface, areas
would be used than in suburban contexts.
12 It should be noted that outdoor provision has traditionally been free to the user (parks) or highly subsidised (sports fields),
while indoor facilities have been subject to user higher user charges. While it is not possible to deal with the issue of
charging and subsidies in detail here, a number of points can be made. 1. The alternative to a certain amount of indoor
provision in the NHDA context is greatly reduced provision overall, because of the costs and limited availability of land. 2.
Some indoor provision has traditionally been highly subsidised and popular, notably swimming pools. 3. The level of user
charges, and hence of subsidy, is a matter for management, and can be used in creative ways to achieve benchmark
participation levels.

14
Figure 3. Combination of indoor and outdoor provision in suburban and high density areas

15
4. Stages in implementing the RAB model
Implementation of the RAB model in the NHDA context based on the above principles would
involve five stages, as set out in Figure 4.
The first two stages set the benchmark parameters for the model. They are undertaken at
metropolitan or state level with the resultant parameters applying to all NHDAs with broadly
similar population profiles.
Stages 3-5 apply to an individual NHDA with a specified population level. The coloured boxes
indicate calculated outcomes, while the non-coloured boxes indicate data or information inputs.
The five stages are explained below.
Figure 4 Stages in implementing the RAB model
4.1 Stage 1: Metro-area recreation activity volumes
In planning for open and recreational space on the basis of recreational participation, adult and
children’s activity should be considered separately. In this report, only the adult activity is
discussed. Further work is needed to incorporate children’s activity.
The task here is to establish the level of participation in recreational activity in the Sydney
Metropolitan Area in terms of visits or engagements in activity per 1000 population per week.
This is the starting point for establishing the benchmark volume of recreational activity to be
accommodated in NHDAs. Recreational activities can be divided into:
• sport and other physical recreation activities
• informal recreation, such as picnicking.
These are discussed in turn below.

16
The quantities specified in the following examples are quite precise. In practice, it would be more
appropriate for figures to be rounded off – for example to the nearest 10 or 100. The detail is
maintained here so that all the raw figures and percentages add up precisely with no confusing
‘rounding errors’.
4.1.1 Sport and other physical recreation activities
National surveys of adult sport and other form of physical recreation participation typically
include at least 50 activities, most of them involving small proportions of the population. The
national sample sizes for such surveys are large enough to provide data at state and metropolitan
level but not for smaller areas such as individual LGAs. The data source used in this study is the
2017-18 Greater Sydney Metropolitan area information abstracted from the annual AusPlay
survey conducted by Sport Australia.13 14
The survey supplies data on 86 different activities. Of these, 11 typically depend on natural
resources which will not be expected to be found within NHDAs and are generally not
necessarily expected to be available in everyone’s immediate council area of residence (e.g.
bushwalking, snow sports, fishing).15 These account for about 5.0% of all physical recreational
activity. Any planning for provision for such activities should take place at the regional level, so
they are excluded from the general RAB model for NHDAs.
Of the remaining 75 activities, the model is developed using individual data for the 30 most
popular, which account for 92% of all activity. The remaining 46 low-participant activities each
have participation rates of less than 0.5% and together account for 3% of all activity. These are
included in the model as a single ‘other’ category.
Table 2 shows the amount of recreational activity which is generated by an average population of
1000 adults.16 The activities are arranged in nine groups related to the sorts of facilities they use.
The table columns are as follows:
A. Participation rate: % of adult participating at least once a year.
B. Frequency of participation: average times per participant per week.17
C. Volume of recreation activity per week by 1000 adult population: Sydney Metropolitan area
age-structure
It can be seen that the total activity volume is 2721 recreational participation times or visits per
week per 1000 population for a population with an average Sydney metro-area age-structure.
13 Special tabulations for Sydney metro-area have been supplied by Sport Australia (previously Australian Sports
Commission).
14 This information can be updated periodically, but year-on-year change is typically quite small. For example, the overall
AusPlay figure for NSW for sport/recreation participation (at least once a week) was 82.3% for 2018 and 82.5% for 2019.
15 Activities excluded from the AusPlay list are: bush walking; golf; surfing; snow sports; rock climbing/caving; canoeing/
kayaking; fishing; rowing; sailing; mountain biking; underwater sports.
16 Some NHDAs may have a significant daytime working population, the demands of which may be taken into account. This
has not been done for this report.
17 Frequency data from ERASS (Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey), conducted annually from 2001-2010 by Sport
Australia and state governments, the predecessor to the AusPlay survey. ERASS 2008 is the last time frequency information
was published, but frequencies of participation for individual activities do not vary greatly from year to year. ERASS provides
data on frequency of participation per year, but for the RAB model the equivalent weekly frequency is used, since the week
relates to both physical activity/health guidelines (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018) and the management
cycle of recreation facilities.

17
Table 2. Sport/physical recreation volume: metro-area data: adults (15+)
Facility types
Activities
A. Participation
rate
B. Frequency
C. Metro-area
activity volume
Source:
AusPlay 2017-18
ERASS
AxBx10
Time period
At least once a year
Per week
Per week
% of adult popn.
Times/participant
Times/1000 popn
1. Linear
Walking
41.2
3.12
1285
Running
16.8
2.07
348
Cycling
9.4
1.01
95
2. Playing pitches
Football/soccer
5.7 (8.2)*
0.96
55
Touch football
1.9
0.51
10
Rugby league
1.1
1.78
20
Rugby union
0.8
1.57
13
Oztag
1.0
1.11
11
3. Ovals
Cricket
1.8 (2.7)*
0.41
7
Aust. rules football
0.7
1.26
9
4. Courts
Tennis
5.4
0.52
28
(indoor & outdoor)
Basketball
3.3
1.03
34
Netball
2.1
1.03
22
Volleyball
0.9
0.92
8
5. Outdoor specialist
Bowls
1.0
1.23
12
Skate-board etc.
0.5
1.46
7
6. Swimming pools
Swimming
17.8
0.80
142
7. Small halls
Fitness/Gym
14.5 (36.7)*
2.08
302
(see also courts)
Yoga
5.5
1.03
57
Pilates
2.7
1.11
30
Martial arts
1.4
1.95
27
Dancing
1.4
1.05
15
Boxing
1.2
2.15
26
Table tennis
0.8
1.11
9
DanceSport
0.6
1.64
10
8. Large halls
Badminton
1.2
0.94
11
(multi-purpose:
Gymnastics
0.5
2.14
11
See also courts)
9. Indoor specialist
Squash
0.9
0.87
8
Weight lifting
0.9
2.46
22
Crossfit
0.7
1.11
8
Other activities (3%)
81
Total
2721
(* organised participation only included – figure in brackets is total participation, including non-organised)
4.1.2 Informal recreation
None of the official open space guidelines (as reviewed in Report 1: Guidelines Review) provides
any sort of research-based evidence for informal open space requirements or any process for
arriving at an estimate of requirements. The evidence basis for Australian provision standards for
informal open space is unknown, while the relationship between the United Kingdom (UK) and

18
United States of America (USA) standards upon which they are said to be based is
undocumented.18 It is therefore necessary to devise an original approach.
The most recent data on recreational use of parks in the Sydney metropolitan area is the Sydney
Parks Group’s Sydney Park Users Survey: 2007.19 Key items of data from the survey are
presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Sydney Parks Group: Sydney Park Users Survey, 2007: select data
a. Adults visiting a local park per week20
44%
b. Park visitors’ average frequency of visit
2.8 times/week
c. Visits per week per 1000 adult population/week (a x b x 10)
1232
d. Number of activities per visitor per visit
1.5
e. Total activity engagements per 1000 per week (c x d)
1823
f. Activities done on park visits:
Times per 1000 popn/week
 Sport/physical activities (activities as in Table 2)
Walking (64% of park visits per 1000 population, i.e., 64% of 1823)
Cycling (6%)
Running (4%)
Sport activities (cricket, soccer etc.) (11%)
Swimming (2%)
Total sport/physical
788
74
49
136
25
1072
•
Informal recreation
Picnic/BBQ (33%)
Supervising children playing (21%)
Attending concert, festival etc. (5%)
Other activities (2%)
Total informal recreation
406
259
61
25
751
Total all activities
1823
(* Source: % participation rates and frequency: Sydney Parks Group (2008))
Using the same format as Table 2, it can be seen that parks generate 1232 visits per 1000
population per week (item c). However, parks are multi-activity venues with visitors on average
engaging in 1.5 activities per visit, resulting in 1823 individual activity engagements per 1000
population per week (item e).
Of the 1823 recreational engagements per week, 1072 are sporting or physical recreation and 751
are informal recreation. The informal activity is additional to the activity indicated in Table 2, but
the sport or physical recreation activity is not additional; it merely indicates that, in the Greater
18 See Veal (2013).
19 See Sydney Parks Group (2008), the last in a series of four Sydney Metropolitan Area community surveys conducted in
1998, 2001, 2004 and 2007 (November). The SPG (formerly Sydney Urban Parks Education and Research (SUPER) Group)
was a consortium of state parks agencies, but ceased to function in about 2012. Data used here are from the unpublished
consultants’ report on the November 2007 survey. A summary of the 2004 survey results was published in Veal (2006). No
more recent data on urban park usage in Sydney is known. A more up-to-date survey is required to confirm the stability of
the SPG rates. A more recent survey of outdoor recreation has been conducted by NSW Department of Planning and
Environment (2019), but the published report does not include sufficient detail to be used in the current study. While
numbers of park users increase in line with population growth, visit rates as a percentage of the population are likely to
have varied little. Rather than long-term trends, the SPG surveys suggested that visit rates fluctuate from year to year,
probably due to weather conditions. The proportion of adults visiting a park at least once in the last week were: 1997: 53%;
2001: 56%; 2004: 56%; 2007: 50%.
20 Some 52% of adults visit any park per week, including local council parks and major parks like Centennial Park, Royal
Botanic Gardens and metropolitan National Parks. 37% visit a local council park (Sydney Park groups, 2008). However, for
27% of major park users, their travel time is less than 15 minutes, so it can be concluded that such users are treating the
major park as a local park. The figure assumed for visiting any ‘local park’ has therefore been assumed to be over 37% but
less than 52%, so a figure of 44% has been used.

19
Sydney environment, more than a third (38%) of such activity takes place in parks. This reflects
the general availability of parklands in the region, particularly in outer suburban areas.
Regarding walking, running and cycling, any one engagement can take place wholly in a park,
wholly on linear routes outside of parks or partly in both settings. These features become relevant
in the final stage of the model implementation.
4.2 Stage 2: Typical NDHA: adjusted recreation activity volumes
As indicated in Section 3.2, the recreation activity volumes should be adjusted to take account of
the expected age-structure of the NHDA. In practice, this would be indicated in the NHDA
Master Plan, reflecting the dwelling mix being provided. For demonstration purposes a ‘generic’
NHDA age-structure is used here, as outlined in Appendix 1.
Among adults, park visitation varies comparatively little with age, so no adjustment has been
made for the NHDA age-structure in the parks for informal activity. The results are shown in
Table 4.
The sport and recreation volume is 2919 visits per 1000 population per week, which is about
11% more than the overall metropolitan rate in Table 2. The higher level of participation in
nearly all the activities is partially off-set by a fall in the level for the most popular activity,
walking. The NHDA age-structure has a higher-than-average proportion of the 25-34 age-group,
which has a below average participation rate in walking. However, it has a lower-than-average
proportion of the older age-groups, which have a high participation rate in walking.
Table 4 also shows the total volume and percentages of activity accommodated by each type of
facility. Notable features are:
• almost half the activity (46.3%) takes place on footpaths and trails and in linear routes in and
through parks;
• a further fifth (20.5%) is informal recreation in parks;
• small halls account for 14.4% of activity;
• formal playing fields/ovals account for only 5.7% of activity.
4.3 Stage 3: Specific NHDA: base scenario: facilities and land for benchmark activity
volume
In order to turn recreation volume into facility and land requirements, it is necessary to know the
recreational capacity (visits per week) and land areas of the different types of facilities. These are
set out in Table 4. The process of estimating these capacities and land areas is set out in
Appendix 2 and the results are summarised in Table 5. Note that these capacities and areas are
generic and should ideally be available for recreational planning in the state generally.21
21 As in WA: see WA Department of Sport and Recreation (2016).

20
Table 4. Recreation participation volumes adjusted for typical NHDA age-structure: adults (15+)
Facility type
Activities
Activity volume for typical NHDA
visits/week per1000 population
By activity
By facility type
No.
No.
%
1. Linear
Walking
1139
(including in parks)
Running
455
Cycling
106
1700
46.3
2. Playing pitches
Football/soccer
93
Touch football
23
Rugby union
24
Rugby league
28
Oztag
17
186
5.1
3. Ovals
Cricket
26
Aust. rules football
19
45
1.2
4. Courts
Tennis
31
(indoor & outdoor)
Basketball
45
Netball
31
Volleyball
9
116
3.2
5. Outdoor specialist
Bowls
15
Skate-board etc.
9
24
0.6
6. Swimming pools (I/D)
Swimming
152
152
4.1
7. Small halls: multi-purpose
Fitness/Gym
335
Yoga
63
Pilates
35
Martial arts
43
Dancing
11
Boxing
23
Table tennis
12
DanceSport
7
529
14.4
8. Large halls: multi-purpose
Badminton
15
(See also: courts)
Gymnastics
15
30
0.8
9. Indoor specialist
Squash
11
Weight lifting
31
Crossfit
11
52
1.4
Other sport etc. (3% of 1-9)
85
85
2.3
Total sport/recreation
2919
79.5
10. Parks (informal)
Informal activities
751 751 20.5
Total
3670
100.0

21
Table 5. Facility unit capacities and land areas
Capacity, visits per week
Area, ha.
Linear
1600 per km of track
0.35 per km
Playing pitches: grass
134-167
0.94
Playing pitches: artificial surface
346-415
0.94
Ovals
167
2.90
Courts
245
0.07
Outdoor specialised
Bowls (6 lanes)
Skateboard
504
variable
0.16
variable
Swimming pools (I/D)
4000
0.14
Small halls
720
0.05
Large halls
850
0.08
Indoor specialised
Squash courts
Gyms
205
840
0.007
0.05
Parks (informal activity)
105
1.0
(Source: see Appendix 2)
Application of the RAB model to a particular NHDA depends on the planned population. For
presentation purposes, a planned population of 5000 adults is assumed. The activity volume per
1000 population, as indicated in Table 4, is 3670 visits per week. For a population of 5000 the
benchmark figure is therefore 18,350 visits per week, as shown in the base scenario in Table 6.
This overall figure is made up of the weekly participation levels for individual activities (as
indicated in Table 4). The resultant facilities and land areas required involve applying the
capacity and area parameters from Table 5. Table 6 is a short version abstracted from the master
spreadsheet, which includes details for individual activities.
Table 6. RAB model: Base scenario
Facilities/activities
Base scenario: Population 5000
Visits/ week
Units required
Area, ha.
Linear (units: km. peak 5%)* 8497/425 5.31 1.86
Playing pitches: grass#
650
3.10
2.91
Playing pitches: artificial# 278 0.46 0.44
Ovals total
226
1.08
3.13
Courts total 581 2.53 0.18
Bowls
77
0.15
0.02
Skate-board etc. 43 0.012 0.012
Swimming pool (I/D)
758
0.19
0.027
Small halls total 2647 2.70 0.135
Large halls total
150
0.24
0.019
Squash courts 55 0.39 0.004
Gyms/Weight training
153
0.31
0.015
Gyms/Crossfit 54 0.11 0.005
Other sport total (3%)
425
Parks: informal (peak 10%)§ 3755/375.5 93.87 1.033
Total = Benchmark
18,350
9.788
(* unit = 1km of track during peak hour, 5% of weekly total. § Unit = area for 4 persons,

22
in peak period = 10% of weekly total. # Pitch types split 70:30 for this exercise)
The land area required in this theoretical base scenario is 9.788 ha or, in the traditional
‘standards’ format, almost 2.0 ha/1000 adult population. At a density of 100 persons per hectare
(that is, total land area of 50 ha.) this would imply 20% of the land being devoted to open space
and recreation. This would typically be seen as unacceptable in a NHDA context, given the likely
cost of land.
The RAB model seeks to provide alternative scenarios to accommodate the same benchmark
activity volume but using less land.
4.4 Stage 4: Specific NHDA: alternative solutions 4.4.1 The base scenario and alternative
solutions
The base scenario is a ‘desk exercise’ exploring the implications, in terms of recreation
participation and land and facilities, of applying average age-specific participation rates to a
NHDA with a specific age-structure, in a hypothetical situation where land-availability is not a
constraint. However, in a NHDA, land availability is very much a constraint. While accepting the
overall level of recreation participation as the benchmark, Stage 4 seeks to develop alternative
facility, activity and land solutions using less land.
However, the development of solutions is likely to involve not only the area of the NHDA itself,
but the immediate area in which it is located. Before considering the operation of the RAB model
in generating alternative solutions, therefore, the relationship with the host LGA should be
considered (see ‘input box’ 4a in Figure 4).
4.4.2 Liaison with host LGA
The principle adopted is that sufficient facilities to accommodate the benchmark volume of
activity should be provided by the NHDA development. However, any particular alternative mix
of facilities is likely to result in the demand for some activities not being met, with keen
participants seeking opportunities outside of the NHDA, placing additional demands on local
facilities. If this were to happen, it would follow that, since the overall quantum of facilities
specified in the base scenario would have the capacity to meet the benchmark activity volume,
there would then be spare capacity in some facilities within the NHDA which would be available
for use by members of the surrounding community. This outward and inward movement would
be assisted by the location of the typical NHDA at a transport node. Liaison with the host LGA
and other local providers will seek to optimise this two-way flow of activity. This is a key feature
of the iteration between alternative solutions which the RAB model facilitates. If a satisfactory
balance cannot be achieved, a possibility is that recreational facilities could be developed outside
of the NHDA designated boundary but as part of the NHDA development process.22
Assessing this situation will require liaison with the host LGA, including consideration of its
local open space/recreation strategy and facility distribution.
4.4.3 Alternative solutions
In developing alternative solutions, the RAB model approach seeks to maintain the overall
benchmark volume of recreational activity while varying the mix of facilities to reduce the
overall amount of land required. An infinite number of such solutions is possible, generated by
the interactive RAB model spreadsheet.
22 Linear facilities – walking, cycling trails – will require particular attention since the length of such trails which could be
accommodated within the boundaries of an NHDA is likely to be limited. Linking with existing trails in the host LGA would
therefore be necessary. Again, this could involve actual development outside the NHDA to achieve the links or other
measures to achieve the required capacity.

23
Solutions are generated by inserting alternative distributions of recreational participation volumes
into the ‘Person-visits/week’ column, ensuring that the overall total remains at the benchmark
level – 18,350 in the worked example. The spreadsheet automatically calculates the units of
facility provision required and the area of land they would occupy. It is also possible to
manipulate the provision of facilities, while seeking to maintain the overall benchmark
participation level. The projected population of the NHDA can also be changed in the
spreadsheet.
A principle incorporated in the development of solutions is that people are, to some extent,
flexible in regard to the recreational activities they adopt.. People are more likely to take up
activities for which facilities are readily accessible and less likely to take up those for which
facilities are less readily accessible.23
One feature of the base scenario is that, particularly for a relatively small population such as
5000, fractions of facilities arise such as two thirds of an oval. Part of the development of
solutions will involve rounding up or rounding down to whole numbers.
In the solutions presented, an area of land is specified for all facilities. It should, however, be
noted that this may be reduced for some built facilities if they form part of high-rise
developments. They would therefore occupy floor-space rather than land in their own right.
A first attempt at a solution is shown in Solution A in Table 7.
Table 7. RAB model: Solution A: no grass pitches, no swimming
Person-visits/
week planned for
5000 popn
Change from
base scenario
Units
required,
N
Land
total
Ha.
Land change
from base
scenario, Ha.
Total linear (unit=1km of track)
9086
589
5.68
1.988
0.129
Rectangular pitches: grass
0
-650
0
0.000
-2.914
Rectangular pitches: artificial
600
322
1
0.942
0.505
Total ovals
0
-226
0
0.000
-3.126
Total O/D courts
689
108
3
0.210
0.033
Lawn bowls (6 lanes)
0
-77
0
0.000
-0.025
Skate
0
-43
0
0.000
-0.012
Total Swimming
0
-758
0
0.000
-0.027
Total: small halls
2940
293
3
0.150
0.015
Total: large sports halls
0
-150
0
0.000
-0.019
Squash
280
225
2
0.020
0.016
Gyms/weight training
1000
847
2
0.100
0.085
Gyms/Crossfit
0
-54
0
0.000
-0.005
Total specific physical activities
14,595
424
3.409
-5.347
Other sport (+3%)
0
-425
Total sport/exercise
14,595
Total parks/informal
3755
0
93.88
1.033
0.000
TOTAL
18,350
-1
4.442
-5.347
23 While research has examined patterns of behaviour in broad recreation activity groupings (for example, sport/non-sport)
related to socio-demographic factors, little is known about the factors affecting choice of individual activities. Parental and
school influences are likely to be significant as are associated locational/cultural factors. Accessibility of facilities, or lack of
it, determines familiarity and affects travel times and costs. There is, of course, a limit to the extent to which people’s
behaviour can be influenced by supply and access and more research is needed to clarify these matters.

24
Compared with the base scenario this solution provides lower provision for grass playing pitch or
oval-based sports, bowls, skateboarding, swimming, large hall-based activities and ‘other’
(minority) sport, together accounting for 2340 visits per week. This is compensated for by a
higher level of provision in the form of linear facilities and an artificial playing pitch, outdoor
courts, small halls, squash courts and gyms.
In Solution B, in Table 8, the total land allocation is similar to Solution A, at 4.4 ha. However,
the distribution of activities and facilities is changed. Swimming activity is indicated at 1300
visit/week, but this would only occupy one third of a swimming pool’s capacity, so some sort of
dual use arrangement of an existing pool would be required, or the local council might decide a
new pool would be desirable for the population at large. Again, the location adjacent to a
transport node is likely to support such a possibility.
Table 8. RAB model: Solution B: no grass pitches, swimming option included
Person-
visits/week
planned for
5000 popn
Change
from
base
scenario
Units
required,
N
Land
total
Ha.
Land change
from base
scenario,
Ha.
Total linear (unit=1km of track)
8765
268
5.48
1.92
0.06
Rectangular pitches: grass
0
-650
0.0
0.00
-2.91
Rectangular pitches: artificial
600
322
1.0
0.94
0.50
Total ovals
0
-226
0.0
0.00
-3.13
Total O/D courts
689
108
3.0
0.21
0.03
Lawn bowls (6 lanes)
0
-77
0.0
0.00
-0.02
Skate
0
-43
0.0
0.00
-0.01
Total Swimming
1300
542
0.3
0.05
0.02
Total: small halls
1961
-686
2.0
0.10
-0.04
Total: large sports halls
0
-150
0.0
0.00
-0.02
Squash
280
225
2.0
0.02
0.02
Gyms/weight training
1000
847
2.0
0.10
0.08
Gyms/Crossfit
0
-54
0.0
0.00
-0.01
Total specific physical activities
14595
425
3.34
-5.42
Other sport (+3%)
0
-425
Total sport/exercise
14595
3.34
Total parks/informal
3755
0
93.87
1.03
0
TOTAL
18,350
0
4.368
-5.420
4.5 Stage 5: Evaluation of solutions
The emphasis given to the various factors involved in evaluating alternative solutions is likely to
vary from case to case. For example, in some cases land availability will be the main
consideration. In other cases, cost will be key, with land savings being contrasted with the higher
cost of construction of built recreational facilities. The feasibility of catering for a two-way flow
of recreational activity between the NHDA and the surrounding LGA, as discussed in Section
4.4.2, may also be a key factor.

25
5. Conclusions, developments and further research
5.1 Conclusions
Report 1: Guidelines Review established that traditional open space provision standards and
existing alternative planning approaches are unsuitable for the planning of open and recreational
spaces in NHDAs, in particular due to their inability to take account of population density. The
report recommended that an approach based on the performance and recreation participation be
developed.
Such an approach is developed in this report in the form of the Recreation Activity Benchmark
(RAB) model. It involves the setting of an overall benchmark volume of recreation activity for a
given population, reflecting participation rates in the broader metropolitan area. The spreadsheet-
based model is then used to develop alternative facility and land area scenarios to accommodate
the benchmark recreational activity volume. The scenarios involve varying the mix of grass-
surface and hard-surface areas and indoor and outdoor facilities and their associated capacities
and land requirements, while maintaining the benchmark recreational activity level.
5.2 Further development
A number of developments of the RAB model beyond the version outlined here would potentially
improve its robustness and utility in planning for open and recreational space in NHDAs.
• Collaboration with industry and consent authorities to refine the model and test weaknesses
and strengths.
• Inclusion of data on children’s recreational participation and facility requirements throughout
all stages.
• Examination of the recreational activity of a non-resident workforce within the NHDA would
affect the design and implementations of the RAB model.
• Possible addition of land costs and facility construction costs to the model parameters.
• Consideration of the effects of seasonal variation in activity levels for some activities.
• Consideration of any necessary modification to the model for situations where proposed
NHDAs have significant existing populations and recreational facilities
• A review of the capacity specifications in Appendix 2 to confirm or modify in light of local
practice.
Other developments which might be considered include:
• Acquisition of more detailed data from Sport Australia’s AusPlay survey, notably a
breakdown of activities by type of facility used (for example, for swimming pools: public
pool or other).
• Examination of the interaction between walking and cycling for recreation and for transport
purposes.
• Consideration of whether the NSW Office of Sport’s plan for increases in regular
participation in sport and recreation by 202524 should be built into the model.
• Consideration of further research which might be undertaken to remedy identified data and
knowledge deficiencies. Possibilities are listed in Appendix 3
24 For adults: 59% to 65%; for children: 21% to 30% (NSW Office of Sport, 2017, pp. 4, 12).

26
Appendix 1: New High Density Area age-structure
The demonstration example of the RAB model incorporates a population age structure likely to
be suitable for a typical NHDA – that is, with a higher proportion of young adults than for
Greater Sydney as a whole. For this purpose, the study drew on the Social Infrastructure and
Open Space Assessment for Kellyville and Bella Vista station precincts,25 which provides data on
an ‘indicative age profile’ for these NHDAs. This is shown in Table A1, with the implied age-
structure of the adult (15+) population as used in the demonstration.
Table A1 NHDA age-structure
Age-groups
% Greater
Sydney
% projected for
Kellyville/Bella
Vista*
Adult age-
groups**
Assumed for typical NHDA
% of total
population
% of adult
population
0-4
6
12
5-11
9
6
12-17
7
3
18-24
10
9
15-24
10.5
13.0
25-34
16
37
25-34
37.0
46.0
35-49
21
20
35-44
13.3
16.5
50-59
12
5
45-54
9.2
11.4
60-69
10
3
55-64
4.0
5.0
70+
9
5
65+
6.5
8.1
Total
100
100
Total
80.5
100.0
Estimated mean age, yrs
37
31
(* Source: Elton Consulting (2019, p. 30). **categories used in Exercise Recreation and Sport Survey (ERASS))
25 See Elton Consulting (2019).

27
Appendix 2: Facility capacities and areas
This Appendix outlines the process followed to arrive at facility capacities, expressed in visits per
week per facility unit. While some of the estimates are based on solid evidence, some involve
plausible ‘guestimates’. Further implementation of the RAB methodology would require research
to firm up the estimates involved, based on conditions in metropolitan Sydney environment. The
results are summarised in Table 5. Information was obtained from a variety of sources.26
1 Linear facilities (footpaths, cycleways, trails)
Linear facilities (footpaths, cycleways, trails) for walking, running and cycling may be part of the
road system, part of parks or separate from parks and the road system (although connected) and
used exclusively by walkers, runners and cyclists.
Regarding footpaths which are part of the road system: the planning philosophy typically built
into the design of NHDAs, or Transit Oriented Developments (TODs)27 is walkability. Residents
are encouraged to walk between home and the transit node and its co-located services. It is
claimed that residents of successful TODs ‘engage in 3.5 times more walking and cycling than
the average for the metropolitan regions in which they are located’.28 Part of the encouragement
arises from the basic design – residences are within walking distance of the transit node. Further
encouragement comes in the form of design features which encourage walking – such as planting,
signage and linkage with local destinations (for example parks, schools, shops). In these
circumstances, it makes sense for such footpaths to be counted as part of the recreational
provision.
Capacity: As with transport planning, provision for recreational walking, running and cycling
activity for peak periods will provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all off-peak visits. For
an indication of recreational peak usage, we look to the usage patterns of parks. The Sydney
Parks Group survey data on park use indicate that two-hour periods around midday on Saturday
or Sunday each accounts for some 10% of weekly visits, so the remaining 40 off-peak periods
account for 80% of visits, or an average of 2% each29.The peak time periods may be different
from informal park use, but for demonstration purposes in this study, the park pattern will be used
as a guide. Given the likely shorter visit time, it will be assumed that peak use represents 5% of
all visits – so space must be provided for only 5% of weekly use.30
No research has been identified which examines the capacity of recreational footpaths and trails.
The available research on such facilities is conducted by transport consultants for transport policy
purposes.31 Capacity is therefore conceived of as a throughput concept, qualified by safety
considerations, especially for shared (pedestrian/cyclist) routes. The measure is the number of
pedestrians and/or cyclists entering or leaving the route per hour. The main consideration is then
the width of the path. While this is of course relevant to recreational use, in this case the length of
the route(s) is also relevant. The flow of users on the route needs to be converted into an estimate
of the number of users distributed along the length of the route during the peak period. For
example, 200 users entering a 5km route in an hour would be distributed along the route at an
26 Notably: Daly (2000, Appendix C); WA Department of Sport and Recreation (2016).
27 See Curtis, Renne and Bertolini (2016) and Report 1.
28 See Falconer and Richardson (2010, p. 4).
29 See Sydney Parks Group (2008) and Veal (2006).
30 This ‘peak hour’ approach could theoretically be applied to other activities/facilities where data are available on typical
intra-week participation patterns. However, the usage of formal and indoor facilities is actively managed so that the pattern
of use over the course of the week is partly in the hands of management. While 100% utilisation of capacity is rarely
possible, assumptions can be made concerning the expected level of usage of well-managed facilities.
31 e.g. National Heart Foundation of Australia (2004), Sinclair Knight Merz (2010).

28
average rate of one user per 25 metres. If users are typically in groups of, say, two on average,
this would be two users every 25 metres, effectively double the capacity. Consideration needs to
be given not only to safety but also to perceptual capacity: that is, the point at which users
perceive the facility to be excessively crowded – especially if this deters usage of the route and
therefore in a reduced level of walking, running, cycling activity.32 Just what the optimum use
level should be in practice is a matter for research and a policy decision. For demonstration
purposes we assume:
• two persons per 25 metres in peak periods;
• an average trip length of one-hour;
• an average speed (walking and running) of 8 km/hour.
The capacity of 1 km of pedestrian footpath/trail would then be:
• Time-use: 80 users per peak-hour;
• Ratio of peak-hour use to total weekly use: 1:20;
• Total use: 1600 visits per week.
Cyclists have a higher travel speed than pedestrians, which would increase capacity, but because
of the speed, a longer average distance between users would be appropriate. If routes are shared
between cyclists and pedestrians, then safety concerns affect the ideal width of the path. More
detailed research is required to refine these estimates. Meanwhile, again for demonstration
purposes, the 1600 visits/week will apply to the total of walking, running and cycling.
Area: A 3.5m wide route will be assumed, so a 1km route will occupy 0.35 ha.
2 Playing pitches
Capacity: grass surface: The capacity of playing pitches is typically expressed in terms of
bookings or sessions per week, in season and can be determined as follows:
• Capacity of a grass pitch: time usage: about 16 hours per week.33
• Length of booking/session: 1.5 hours.
• Capacity: bookings/sessions: 10 per week.
To link with the RAB model, this must be converted to weekly visits, or resident player-sessions
per week. For one playing pitch:
• Users per booking/session: local team or squad, including reserves and physically active
referees, and a visiting team/squad: for example for soccer: resident team/squad: 20 persons.
• Bookings/sessions per week per team: one for training purposes and one on alternate weeks
for home matches: average of 1.5 bookings/sessions per week.
• Teams accommodated per week on one pitch (10/1.5): 6.7.
• Capacity in resident player-sessions per week: 28x 6.7 = 187.6 for soccer. For sports with
larger team sizes, for example rugby/league: 235.
Capacity: artificial surfaces: The capacities of pitches with artificial turf or other synthetic
surfaces are not limited by the natural features of grass pitches. The high investment in the
artificial surface usually results in floodlighting also being included in the design, so as to
maximise usage. In theory, therefore, instead of the 16 hours of use of the grass pitch, they could
accommodate usage for 24-hours a day, 7-days a week if the demand was forthcoming. In
32 See Shatu, Yigitcanlar and Bunker (2019).
33 Affected by the quality of design (e.g., drainage), maintenance (e.g. irrigation) and the presence of floodlights:
see Sutherland Shire Council (2012).

29
practice, a 12-hour day is quite possible, resulting in 84 hours of usage a week, or 42 bookings/
sessions, which is more than five times the capacity of the grass pitch. In terms of resident visits,
the weekly capacity would then be 560.
Achieving maximum usage would involve booking during weekday daytime hours, which would
typically require usage by an educational institution. In most NHDA contexts, this would involve
planning and management arrangements associated with nearby institutions (see Section 4.5).
The feasibility of developing artificial surface playing fields will be affected by costs. Research
conducted for the WA government suggests that total lifetime costs of an artificial turf playing
field is about double that of a grass equivalent.34 Thus, any usage level over 30 hours a week
(twice that of grass pitches) would make the artificial surface option cost-effective.
The projections for artificial surfaces in this exercise are therefore based on:
• Length of booking/session: 1.5 hours.
• Capacity: bookings/sessions: 26 per week (5 weekdays x 3 bookings + weekends 11
bookings).
• Time available: 39 hours per week.
• Users per booking/session: as for grass pitch: for example for soccer: resident team/squad: 20
persons.
• Bookings/sessions per week per team: one for training purposes and one on alternate weeks
for home matches: average of 1.5 bookings/sessions per week.
• Teams accommodated per week on one pitch (26 bookings/1.5): 17.3 teams.
• Capacity in resident player-sessions: 20 x 17.3 = 346 per week for soccer; 415 for rugby.
Area: A senior soccer pitch is 80m x 117 m, including 3m buffer zones, giving a total of 9360 m2
or 0.94 ha.
3 Ovals
Capacity: The capacity of ovals are the same as for standard pitches. It should be noted that, for
planning purposes, just one assessment can be made for this category, since cricket and
Australian Rules Football can occupy the same space in summer/winter seasons.
Area: AFL dimensions, including run-offs: width: 155m; length 185m = 28,675 m2 = 2.9 ha.
4 Courts
Capacity: The capacity of hard-surface courts are calculated on the same basis as artificial surface
pitches discussed above. Use patterns of hard-surface courts will vary according to the particular
activities involved (tennis, basketball, netball etc.) and on the degree of formality of the use.
Further research is necessary to establish particular usage patterns. Again, for demonstration
purposes, the following is proposed:
• 8 resident users per session
• 1.5-hour sessions
• 60 hours of use per week = 40 sessions
• Usage per court per week: 320 visits.
34 See: https://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/support-and-advice/facility-management/developing-facilities/natural-
grass-vs-synthetic-turf-study-report/life-cycle-cost-turf

30
Area: For tennis, including safety zones: width: 18.3m; length 36.6m = 669 m2 = 0.07 ha.
5 Outdoor specialist
Bowls
Capacity:
• Assume a green with 6 lanes.
• Singles (2 players) or doubles (4 players) per lane: assume average of 3
• 18 players per session
• Assume 4 x 2-hour sessions per day = 28 sessions per week
• Capacity is 28 x 18 = 504 player-sessions per week.
Area: 40m x 40m = 1600m2 = 0.16 ha.
Skateboard parks
Capacity and Area: The size of skateboard parks is entirely flexible, so it can be assumed that a
park can be designed for any level of participation specified. Similarly, the area occupied is
flexible. As a starting point, the visitor-space ratio used for informal park use has been assumed
(see item 10 below). This implies providing space for peak period use (10% of weekly total) at a
rate of 353 users per hectare or 28 sq. m. per user.
6 Swimming pools
Capacity: Assume:
• A 25 metre indoor pool.
• Open seven days a week, 13 hours a day = 91 hours a week.
• Visit numbers of 200,000 a year, or 4000 per week, can be expected.
Area: For 25m pool: 0.14 ha (50m pool: 0.21 ha).
7 Small halls
Capacity: In a high-density area, it would probably be wise to develop a facility with more than
one room (and probably with associated specialist facilities like squash courts), but the capacity
measure is for a single hall. Such activities as martial arts, fitness classes and table tennis could
be accommodated in a space as follows:
• Open 7 days, 12 hours a day
• Bookings/sessions, on average, 1.5 hours
• 65% occupancy = 36 sessions a week
• Average 20 people per booking/session
• Average 720 person-sessions/week
Area: Area is flexible, but a 20m x 20m space would be typical, as part of a multi-sport or
community centre. With some circulation space, a unit size of 500 m2, or 0.05 h. has been
assumed.
8 Large halls
Large halls are typically measured in terms of ‘courts’, referring to basketball or tennis court
dimensions. While they accommodate activities which uniquely require larger spaces, such as
badminton or gymnastics, they can also accommodate activities which are also played outdoors,

31
such as tennis, basketball, netball and 5-a-side soccer (futsal). In addition, outdoor sports can use
such spaces for skills and fitness training. It makes sense for planning in NHDAs to make use of
this feature in view of the likely scarcity/cost of outdoor space. While single-court halls can be
built, in NHDA areas, it makes sense to build two-court facilities for maximum capacity and
flexibility. However, to maintain flexibility, the unit size used is a single-court hall, with capacity
derived as follows:
• Open 7 days, 12 hours a day
• Bookings/sessions, on average, 2 hours
• 80% occupancy = 34 sessions a week
• Average 25 people per booking/session
• Average 850 person-sessions/week
Area: Corresponding to a tennis court: width: 18.3m; length 36.6m = 669 m2, adding 130m2 for
changing rooms = 800m2 = 0.08 ha.
9 Indoor specialist
Squash courts
Squash can be played in doubles or singles. Data are required on the typical balance between the
two forms, but here a 50:50 split is assumed giving an average of three players per session. At
least two courts would normally be built, typically as part of a multi-sport complex. Capacity can
be derived as follows:
• Open 7 days, 13 hours a day
• Bookings/sessions, on average, 1 hour
• 75% occupancy = 34 sessions a week
• Average 3 people per booking/session
• Average 205 person-sessions/week
Area per court: 6.5m x 10m = 65m2 + 10m2 circulation space = 75m2 = 0.007 ha.
Gyms
Capacity: Gyms can be almost any size, but capacity for a minimum size unit can be estimated as
follows:
• Open 7 days, 15 hours a day
• Bookings/sessions not fixed: assume average of 1 hour
• Average 8 people present at any one time
• Average 840 person-sessions/week
Area: While a free-standing gym may require a minimum size for economic viability, this may
not be the case for a gym attached to a multi-sport centre. A unit size has been assumed of: 25m
x 25m + 10m2 circulation space = 510m2 = 0.051 ha.
10 Parks: informal recreation
There is no established way of estimating the park space required for informal recreation. The
following observations can be made.
The allocations of informal open space in traditional standards approach to open space planning
is arbitrary and unsupported by research or explicit methodology. The catchment access
approach to planning (see Report 1) for local parks has some basis in the concept of

32
‘walkability’. This helps with the spatial distribution of parks in relation to residences, which is
significant in low-density suburbs but less significant in NHDAs, where distances are already
constrained by the size of the planning area. Furthermore, the approach does not formally specify
the quantum of open space required.
An approach which would at least simplify the problem is to adopt the peak demand principle.
That is, to provide for peak demand on the principle that it will accommodate all off-peak
demand. As noted in regard to linear routes above, the Sydney Parks Group survey data35 indicate
that two two-hour periods around midday on Saturday or Sunday account for 10% of weekly park
visits each and the remaining off-peak time accounts for 80% of park visits. Making provision for
Saturday/Sunday peak periods would therefore provide sufficient capacity to accommodate all
off-peak use.
Research on the patterns of recreational use of urban open space is limited36. Research on the
area of open space occupied by a family/group engaged in a picnic and informal play has been
conducted in Turkish parks,37 but such research has not been conducted in Australia and not for
other park-specific activities. An area of about double that arrived at by the Turkish researchers
has been assumed for demonstration purposes, but some local observational research is required
to establish a firmer figure.
Capacity/area
The working approach adopted for this study is therefore as follows:
• Assume a group of four informal recreationists occupies an area of radius 1m (3.1 sq. m.).
• Assume that acceptable minimum ‘social space’ between the group and adjacent groups at
peak time is 10m.
• The area for the group of four is then 113m2 or 0.011 ha.
• Peak capacity is therefore: 88 groups or 353 persons per ha.
35 See Sydney Parks Group (2008) and Veal (2006)
36 See Veal (2006)
37 See Gedikli & Ozbilen (2004).

33
Appendix 3 Further research possibilities
This project raises a number of issues for research to remedy data and knowledge deficiencies.
• Informal recreation and park use. For information on park use, reliance was placed on the
Sydney Parks Group’s November 2007 survey. The information is therefore somewhat dated
and was designed for management purposes rather than the planning purpose involved here.
With the SPG no longer functioning, there is a need for a new survey to be conducted to
provide up-to-date data to inform open space and recreation planning in the metropolitan area.
As noted above, the published report of the recent Greater Sydney Outdoors Study38 is not
detailed enough to indicate whether the survey data would be suitable for use in this study.
• Recreation behaviour pattern variability. The RAB model assumes that people coming to live
in a NHDA will, to some extent, be flexible in their recreation behaviour patterns, adapting to
the pattern of availability of facilities. However, the extent to which this is the case is
unknown. Information on the variability of recreation behaviour patterns between
communities with differing residential characteristics and patterns of facility provision is
limited. This is due to: the limited sample size of national recreation participation surveys and
lack of associated facility supply data; the general lack of state-level participation surveys
(which, if they existed, would probably also be limited by sample size); and the lack of
collation of, and comparability between, local council surveys.
• Facility capacities. The review of the data in Appendix 2 indicates gaps in knowledge. While
theoretical capacities of facilities can be calculated, in practice facilities can rarely be used to
100% of theoretical capacity. Furthermore, in the case of sports activities, the actual number
of active participants during a typical session is not known: for example, how many reserves
and substitutes and active referees are involved in addition to the players on the pitch during
play? A systematic examination of actual usage levels of a sample of different facility and
activity types is required to establish useable benchmark data on facility capacities for use in
the planning process. This applies to informal facilities, such as parks used for play and
picnicking.
• Facility catchments. The RAB model assumes some interaction between populations and
facilities in both NHDAs and their surrounding districts. The extent of this depends on the
distances people are prepared or able to travel for recreation. However, despite the reference
to catchment areas in a number of open space/recreation planning guidelines, the dimensions
used are generally ‘guestimates’. There is little published empirical research on the catchment
areas of recreational facilities. From early UK research, it is known that the level of usage
(trips per 1000 population) varies dramatically with the distance and with the age and socio-
economic characteristics of populations39. There is, however, little information available
related to conditions in twenty-first century Australia. There is a need for a review of
available data and some survey work on actual usage patterns to fill the knowledge gaps.
38 See footnote 17 for discussion of Sydney Parks Group and Greater Sydney Outdoors surveys.
39 See Cowling et al. (1982).

34
• Activity-facility relationship 1. Published national and state data on physical recreation
participation include only limited information on the type of facility used. This is a problem
for planning because, for example, aerobics and keep fit activities can take place in the home,
so not all the activity needs to be accommodated in public access facilities. Swimming can
take place in home pools, the sea, lakes and rivers as well as public access pools. As noted in
this report, recreational walking can take place in the street, in walking trails or in parks.
Informal sporting activity can take place in parks or in a back yard. There is a need for
research to ‘calibrate’ the data to indicate the proportion met in public access facilities of
which type, and the extent to which this varies.
• Activity-facility relationship 2. Walking is the most popular physical recreation activity.
Walking trails and parks are seen as providing the infrastructure for this. However, and
unknown proportion of walking activity arises from some participants walking to and from
the trail or the park. The extent to which this is the case could be empirically investigated.

35
References
Australian Government (2018) Sport 2030: Participation, performance, integrity, industry.
Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia/Department of Health.
Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW) (2018) Physical Activity Across the Life Stages.
Canberra: AIHW.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health, Housing & Community Services (1995)
AMCORD: Australian Model Code for Residential Development: A national resource
document for residential development. Canberra: AGPS.
Cowling, D., Fitzjohn, M., & Tungatt, M. (1982) Identifying the Market: Catchment areas of
sports centres and swimming pools, Study 24. London: Sports Council.
Curtis, C., Renne, J.L., & Bertolini, L. (Eds) (2016) Transit Oriented Development: Making it
happen. London: Routledge.
Daly, J. (2000) Recreation and Sport Planning and Design. Lower Mitcham, SA: Human
Kinetics.
Elton Consulting (2019) Social Infrastructure and Open Space Assessment: Kellyville and Bella
Vista Station Precincts. Report to Landcom. Parramatta, NSW: Landcom, NSW
Government.
Evans, G. (2001) Cultural Planning: An urban renaissance? London: Routledge.
Falconer, R., & Richardson, E. (2010) Rethinking urban land use and transport planning –
Opportunities for transit oriented development in Australian cities: Case study Perth.
Australian Planner, 47(1), 1-13.
Gedikli, R., & Ozbilen, A. (2004) A mathematical model to determine unit area size per person
needed in a neighbourhood park: A case study in Trabzon City (Turkey). Building and
Environment, 39(4), 1365-1378.
Jesuit Social Services (2018) Inquiry into the Adequacy of Youth Diversionary Programs in NSW.
Sydney: Jesuit Social Services.
National Heart Foundation of Australia (2004) Healthy by Design: A planners’ guide to
environments for active living. Melbourne: National Heart Foundation of Australia (Vic).
NSW Department of Planning & Environment (2019) Greater Sydney Outdoors Study. Sydney:
Department of Planning and Environment, NSW Government.
NSW Government Architect (2017) Greener Places: Establishing an urban green infrastructure
policy for New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Government Architect.
NSW Office of Sport (2017) Strategic Plan 2018-2022. Sydney: Office of Sport, NSW
Government.
Shatu, F., Yigitcanlar, T., & Bunker, J. (2019) Objective vs. subjective measures of street
environments in pedestrian route choice behaviour. Transportation Research Part A, 126,
August, 1-23.
Sinclair Knight Merz (2010) Bicycle and Pedestrian Capacity Model: North Brisbane cycleway
investigation. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.
Sutherland Shire Council (2012) Review of Sutherland Shire Sports Field Management Practices.
Report by AgEnviro Solutions. Sutherland, NSW: SSC.
Sydney Parks Group (2008) Sydney Park Users Survey: 2007. Report by Taverner Research.
Sydney: Sydney Parks Group.
Veal, A.J. (2006) The use of urban parks. Annals of Leisure Research, 9(4), 245-277.
Veal, A.J. (2013) Open space planning standards in Australia: in search of origins. Australian
Planner, 50(3), 224-32.
Veal, A.J. (2017) Leisure, Sport and Tourism: Politics policy and planning, 4th edn. Wallingford,
UK: CABI.
WA Department of Sport and Recreation (2016) Sports Dimensions Guide for Playing Areas:
Sport and recreation facilities, Sixth edn. Perth, WA: DSR.