Big Splash Waterpark is now a site of urban decay. Photo: James Coleman.
The company that acquired Big Splash Waterpark had no intention of operating a water park in the long term.
How would anyone hope to make money from a four- to six-month-a-year swimming and water play operation with ageing infrastructure that would become a money pit?
Translink Management Group Pty Ltd, owned by Songnan (Morris) Huang, spent $7.5 million buying the Macquarie site in a private transaction in 2021, in the middle of COVID and an ongoing housing crisis.
Despite the lease’s PRZ2 Restricted Access Recreation zoning, it’s obvious that the end game was some sort of residential development (probably units).
Outdoor swimming pool operations are at the mercy of Canberra’s weather extremes, have high maintenance costs and cannot compete with all-year, weatherproof facilities.
Indeed, the CISAC pool in Belconnen is only a few minutes away.
People’s swimming patterns have also changed, and the outdoor pool experience is no longer as popular as it once was.
Translink said it closed Big Splash in late 2024 because the water slides needed maintenance, but it was never going to throw good money after bad doing it.
Now it says the “escalating cost of repairing aging infrastructure” makes it “prohibitive” to reopen.
At the same time, it has engaged urban development troubleshooter Purdon to help come up with a redevelopment plan within the constraints of the lease and sell it.
“Plans under consideration include a 25-metre indoor/outdoor pool and outdoor splash park, ensuring water-based fun remains part of the site’s future … There are no plans to rezone the site,” it says.
But there is talk of a hotel.
The slides need to come down.
There is another development incorporating a pool and water play in the works – Geocon’s mega-apartment proposal for the Phillip pool site.
No one is going there with Big Splash, yet. But if the Phillip proposal is approved, the precedent will be set.
The situation has become political, whipped up by the Greens and “community” outrage at the loss of such an “iconic” but private facility.
The ACT Government has been caught in the storm, ruling out any lease change and threatening the owner with “regulatory action” for failing to meet the lease terms. That may be good politics now, but it ties the government’s hands somewhat when it should stay flexible.
It was not responsible for any of this, given that it was a private property deal and a private business; however, now those upset about the situation are looking to the government to fix things.
Access Canberra may slap the owner on the wrist over maintenance issues, but now that Purdon is involved and a redevelopment of some kind has been floated, the issue could drag on for a long time.
The fact is that Translink will need more than a water park to recoup its investment and make a profit.
And who would stay at a hotel in Macquarie? Perhaps serviced apartments, and lots of them, are a better bet.
The government should hold the whip hand. It could terminate the lease, but that could be challenged in the courts and result in compensation. So be it. There should be no sympathy for Translink. It knew what it was taking on and took the punt.
Termination would send a message to other speculators.
If the lease is terminated, what happens to the land? The government isn’t about to take over a water park, and who would buy it with such a restrictive lease?
The government could develop the site itself as infill housing, but it also has the opportunity to influence any private redevelopment plans to get the best result for the community.
But what would that look like?
Forget Big Splash. It is gone. Those unsafe and algae-ridden water slides need to come down.
The future of the site should not be driven by nostalgia, Green fantasies, a few hundred petitioners or social media posts.
Community co-design may sound fine, but the community won’t have skin in the game.
Any proposal must have a strong business case to demonstrate viability, which likely means other uses besides a pool.
Of course, anybody can start a business and go broke. That’s free enterprise. If the community genuinely wants some sort of water-based facility, it must be willing to put its money where its mouth is and support that business.
However, if the price of securing that facility is some other form of development on the site that can serve as a financial anchor, the community and government should also be open to it.
Otherwise, there will be a hole in the ground and a suburban eyesore for a long time yet.
