West Pymble turf war: Ku-ring-gai Council mulls tipping millions more into unusable oval

More details have emerged about Ku-ring-gai Council’s botched resurfacing of Norman Griffiths Oval, with the upper North Shore council conceding another $7.5 million must be spent to amend what it alleges were “poor workmanship and materials” during construction.

However Turf One, the company behind the resurfacing, has hit back, describing the claims as “unsubstantiated”, saying it is “deeply disappointed [it] was not permitted to complete a project that the Norman Griffiths Oval community so strongly deserved”.

What happened: Norman Griffiths Oval, home to the West Pymble Football Club, has been a vacant construction site for nearly a year, after Ku-ring-gai Council terminated its contract with Turf One last May. 

The council then launched an investigation into the project for the purpose of identifying "critical learnings”. 

While the investigation's full findings remain confidential “due to ongoing legal issues”, a council report filed for this month's meeting provides an insight into those “learnings”.

What went wrong: Norman Griffiths Oval sits in a low-lying area and can often turn into a mud pit. To remedy this, redevelopment plans required the site be able to hold 2.4 million litres of stormwater from the playing surface. That’s about enough to fill the North Sydney Olympic Pool.

When conceptual designs were put forward by council in 2021, the idea was to install a large concrete tank to store run-off water in rainy weather. 

Turf One, when tendering for the contract, put forward an alternate, aggregate based detention system, a recommendation that council ultimately accepted. 

• What’s the difference? An aggregate based system puts a layer of crushed, porous rock such as gravel beneath the pitch, which can hold water before it gradually flows out into the soil. 

A council staff report to councillors, in the papers for this month’s meeting (April 28), alleges that was the wrong decision. Plans have been proposed to revert to the original, concrete tank stormwater detention system, at an additional cost of $696,000. 

The report also alleges that “substantial costly corrective works” are required due to “poor workmanship and materials used by the previous contractor”. 

The Lorikeet does not suggest that the council's allegations are true, only that they were included in a report to be tabled at a council meeting.

In a statement, Turf One told the Lorikeet: “In early 2026, the company made multiple attempts to engage constructively to reach a practical outcome and minimise further cost and disruption, particularly for the local community, however these efforts were not successful.

“The company does not agree with claims regarding workmanship, materials or design, and considers these to be unsubstantiated. Turf One reserves its rights in relation to any untrue or misleading claims …”

According to the report to councillors, upon inspection of the site, council staff raised concerns that the drainage system had been “contaminated with unsuitable material”, which affected its ability to retain water.

Turf One CEO Stephen Hill told the Lorikeet the company “has a proud history of delivering durable, high-performance sporting infrastructure across Australia for more than 20 years” and is “committed to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in every community in which we operate”.

Legal battle: 

The project’s initial budget in 2021 was $3.3 million. This blew out in 2025 to $12.4 million. The proposed new budget sits at $20.2 million.

After a dispute with Ku-ring-gai Council over payments, and “having exhausted reasonable avenues”, Turf One “exercised its statutory rights under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act”.

“An independent adjudicator subsequently determined that Turf One was entitled to a further payment of approximately $4.6 million,” the company said. 

Turf One says that this result provides “clear and independent confirmation of its position”.

What now?: So far, $12.7 million has been spent on the project. On April 28, councillors will debate whether to approve taking $7.5 million from council reserves to finish the job.