Thames Aquatic Facilities Project
A recommendation to build a $26.2 million all-indoor facility on Thames High School grounds is being recommended by Thames Community Board as the most affordable option to replace Thames’ ageing Centennial Pool and meet community needs.
This is one of six options (including not replacing Centennial Pool) thoroughly investigated in a business case put to the Board at its Wednesday 19 March 2025 meeting. The Board chose this as its preferred option and recommended it to the Council to approve.
The recommended option would contain three indoor pools: a learn-to-swim pool for younger children, a programme pool for therapy, aqua walking and learn-to-swim for older children, and a 6-lane 25-metre lap pool. There would also be an indoor splash pad.
The project acknowledges that finding a way to make the pool replacement affordable to the community is a major challenge. The average annual cost per ratepayer over 30 years would be around $682 - if funded entirely by Thames Ward.
Under the preferred model, capital costs would be reduced by building the upper section of the aquatic facility with ‘structural fabric’ - a curved steel roof holding two layers of structural fabric with insulation sandwiched in between. A similar structure has been used in Kaitāia’s Te Hiku Sports Hub which opened in 2024 and is reported to be performing well.
At 50 years of age, Thames Centennial Pool is reaching the end of its useful life. It is built on a urupā | burial site. It has been agreed with Ngāti Maru that the pool will be removed.
The facility is the top recommended option in a business case that completes over three years’ work investigating community needs, sites, technical specifications, build options and costs, with key input from consultants Visitor Solutions.
A feasibility study undertook comprehensive assessment of 19 possible sites, and determined that the Richmond Street court site on land leased from Thames High School was the strongest local site. A sub-regional facility at Kōpū South, although also scoring highly in a 2024 public survey, has been evaluated in the business case as not viable for Thames ratepayers without additional financial support.
The needs and views of the public have been assessed in two surveys and drop-in sessions. Key findings included the importance of aquatic provision to the public – providing a vital life skill in learning to swim, promoting wellbeing and fitness, and facilitating rehabilitation and leisure. Many people identified the lack of all-year round adequately warm water in Thames’ current outdoor pool as a turn-off, particularly for young learners and an ageing population (with senior citizens forecast to comprise 47% of Thames’ population by 2054).
The six options investigated by the business case are:
Option
|
No pool replacement
|
All outdoor, Richmond St site
|
Indoor-outdoor mix, Richmond St site
|
All indoor, structural fabric building, Richmond St site
|
All indoor, traditional building, Richmond St site
|
All indoor, sub-regional staged centre Kōpū South
Stage 1 Stage 2
|
Scope
|
-
|
25m x 7 lanes
|
Outdoor: 25m x 6 lanes
Indoor: learn-to-swim pool programme pool, splash pad
|
25m x 6 lanes, learn-to-swim pool, programme pool, splash pad
|
25m x 6 lanes, learn-to-swim pool, programme pool splash pad
|
25m x 7 lanes, learn-to-swim pool, programme pool, spa, sauna, steam
|
All the stage 1 amenities plus leisure pool and fitness centre
|
Water
|
-
|
450m2
|
660m2
|
660m2
|
660m2
|
673 m2
|
823m2
|
Estimated visits (per year)
|
-
|
37,000
|
58,500
|
61,500
|
62,500
|
65,500
|
91,500
|
Capital expenditure (pre cost escalation)
|
$550,000 (cost of removing Centennial Pool)
|
$13,509,000
|
$22,472,000
|
$26,208,000
|
$29,021,000
|
$40,074,000
|
$54,494,000
|
Operational expenditure (first year, inflation-adjusted)
|
Saving $659,000
|
$779,000
|
$1,075,000
|
$1,098,000
|
$1.074m
|
$1,242,000
|
$1,692,000
|
Average annual ratepayer impact over 30 years if Thames funded only
|
Saving $148
|
$325
|
$592
|
$682
|
$729
|
$988
|
$1,273
|
Conclusion
|
Not a viable option. Significant impact and loss of provision
|
4th option in business case. Cheapest but limited value for spending
|
2nd strongest option. Will meet majority of community needs.
|
Business case ranked it the strongest and most balanced option.
|
3rd option in business case. Higher cost may be unaffordable
|
Not viable for Thames ratepayers
|