Residents are calling for an end to the public dispute over a proposed Sutherlands Park pool, as Gosnells council and Southern River MP Terry Healy clash over funding and whether a splash pad should be built instead.
Mr Healy declared “The Pool is Dead!” in a Facebook post, saying council had decided against building a $35 million indoor facility.
However, council’s October 13 resolution did not abandon an indoor pool.
Councillors voted 10–0 to support entering a $2 million funding agreement with the State Government, but only if the money was used to develop an indoor pool and formed part of the State’s overall contribution to the new aquatic facility.
Mayor Terresa Lynes said planning was already underway.
“The city has already begun preparing detailed plans and feasibility documents for a new aquatic facility, in accordance with Council’s July 2026 resolution,” she said.
The original $132 million SPLASH proposal was discontinued in July in favour of a smaller indoor facility with room for future expansion.
The city estimates the smaller facility would cost around $80 million and is seeking $15 million each from the State and Federal governments, with the city funding the balance.
Mr Healy has argued that a $35 million indoor pool could proceed with available funding.
He said he wants the State’s $2 million commitment used for an outdoor splash pad next to the Youth Plaza instead.
Responding to questions from The Examiner, Mr Healy described the $2 million commitment as delivered and said residents should benefit from it sooner.
“The Cook Labor Government delivered its promised $2 million to support the City of Gosnells in the construction of an indoor recreational facility,” he said.
“With no indoor pool expected before 2030, the government and I will not walk away from the Gosnells and Southern River community. We will ensure they can benefit from this funding sooner.”
Council has rejected the splash pad proposal, citing construction costs, annual operating expenses of around $100,000 and the potential diversion of resources from the indoor facility.
The city had sought permission to use part of the $2 million for revised plans and a feasibility study.
Mayor Lynes said ratepayers would bear that cost if the State Government did not allow the money to be used for planning.
Although the city confirmed work had begun, its response did not explicitly confirm whether the previously announced March 2027 target for the plans and study remained on track.
The mayor also rejected Mr Healy’s claim that $33 million had been collected from four suburbs and should be returned to ratepayers.
“Mr Healy’s claim that the city has collected $33 million from four suburbs to construct an aquatic facility at Sutherland Park is simply untrue,” she said.
Asked about Mr Healy’s claim of approximately $250,000 in previous expenditure, the city identified $24,000 spent on an in-house advocacy campaign and $10,000 on visits to aquatic facilities in New South Wales. It did not provide the full expenditure breakdown requested.
The new feasibility study would establish construction and operating costs for the smaller facility, Mayor Lynes said.
Comments beneath both officials’ social media posts reflected frustration with the dispute, with calls for clearer costings, a construction timetable and a public meeting.
Some supported council’s decision to seek more funding, while others questioned the delays or whether a pool represented value for money.
“Can we please put politics aside and actually do something for the people,” one commenter wrote.
The city says it remains committed to an indoor aquatic facility and will continue seeking the government funding needed to deliver it.
