If Not Oxley Beach, Where Should the Port Macquarie Tidal Pool or Ocean Pool Go? 

If Not Oxley Beach, Then Where?

It is the question we hear most often:

“If you don't want the ocean pool at Oxley Beach, where do you want it?”

Our answer is simple:

We are not against a tidal pool or ocean tidal pool. We simply do not believe Oxley Beach is the right location.

Protect Oxley Beach Port Macquarie is not promoting one predetermined alternative site. Instead, we believe the Port Macquarie-Hastings community deserves an independent, transparent assessment of all reasonable locations and types of public swimming facilities before permanent development is facilitated on environmentally significant C2 Environmental Conservation land.

The question should not be:

Oxley Beach or nothing?

It should be:

What is the best swimming facility, in the best location, for the whole community?

We Want the Options Properly Investigated

Protect Oxley Beach believes the community should have the opportunity to consider a broader range of possibilities, including:

• ocean pools;

• tidal pools;

• estuary swimming facilities;

• river-based swimming areas;

• coastal RE1 Public Recreation sites;

• locations with existing recreation infrastructure;

• sites with better universal access;

• locations with lower coastal hazard exposure; and

• locations that can be delivered at a lower whole-of-life cost.

The NSW Department of Planning's Places to Swim guidance recognises a range of natural and highly modified swimming environments, including river, estuary and other waterway settings. It also identifies examples such as Como Tidal Baths and Dawn Fraser Pool as different types of public swimming environments.

This demonstrates an important point:

A community swimming facility does not have to look exactly like a traditional ocean rock pool.

Our Position

Protect Oxley Beach supports:

✅ A public swimming facility for Port Macquarie-Hastings

We recognise the community's desire for a high-quality swimming facility that can provide recreation, exercise, family activities and accessible aquatic experiences.

❌ We do not support locating it at Oxley Beach

Our concerns relate to the suitability of the location, including its environmental values, conservation zoning, cultural significance, coastal hazards, accessibility, transport constraints and potential whole-of-life costs.

🔎 We believe the best location has not yet been demonstrated

We want the alternatives assessed using current information and consistent criteria.

🌊 We support investigating suitable coastal sites

In particular, coastal RE1 Public Recreation locations should be considered where they can meet the necessary environmental, engineering, accessibility and community requirements.

🏞️ We also support investigating river and estuary options

River and estuary-based tidal swimming facilities should receive the same level of serious investigation as ocean pool locations.

Why Look Beyond the Traditional Ocean Pool?

The traditional NSW ocean pool is an iconic form of public recreation.

But it is not the only model.

Across Australia and internationally, communities have developed public swimming facilities in harbours, rivers, estuaries, bays and tidal waterways.

These facilities can provide a very different relationship with the surrounding environment.

Rather than building a major engineered structure into an exposed ocean coastline, a tidal or river swimming facility can potentially be integrated into an existing recreational precinct.

Of course, not every river or estuary location will be suitable. Water quality, currents, tides, flooding, boating, ecology, contamination, public safety and environmental impacts would all need to be independently investigated.

The point is that these options should be tested rather than dismissed.

What Can We Learn From Other Tidal Pools?

There are already examples of successful tidal swimming facilities in NSW.

Como Tidal Baths — Georges River

Como Tidal Baths is located on the Georges River within Como Pleasure Grounds.

The 50-metre netted tidal swimming area sits alongside the existing Como Swimming Complex and within a broader recreation precinct containing facilities including parking, toilets and family recreation areas.

This is an interesting model for Port Macquarie because the swimming facility is not an isolated piece of infrastructure.

It forms part of a larger community destination.

The surrounding recreation environment can provide additional reasons for people to visit, while existing infrastructure can potentially support the swimming facility.

Lilli Pilli Baths — Port Hacking

Lilli Pilli Baths provides another example.

Located within Lilli Pilli Point Reserve, the netted tidal swimming baths are complemented by existing facilities including parking, toilets, showers, changing facilities and a reserve setting.

Again, the important lesson is not that Lilli Pilli should be copied.

It is that public swimming can be integrated with an existing recreational landscape.

Murray Rose Pool: A Harbourside Swimming Model

Another useful example is Murray Rose Pool at Double Bay.

The harbourside tidal enclosure provides a swimming area of approximately 90 metres by 60 metres, with nearby public amenities, showers, change rooms, a kiosk and surrounding public open space.

It demonstrates how a swimming facility can become part of a broader urban waterfront rather than requiring a new major structure on an exposed ocean headland.

A New Example: Callan Park Tidal Baths

Perhaps one of the most relevant contemporary examples is the Callan Park Tidal Baths on the Parramatta River in Sydney.

The project has been developed as part of the Bay Run and the broader rehabilitation of the Parramatta River.

The new facility includes an accessible pathway and ramp, jetty, pontoon, seating and showers. Construction commenced in 2026, with opening expected in summer 2026–27. The project is jointly funded by the NSW Government and Inner West Council.

Importantly, the project followed an extensive assessment process, including water-quality testing, environmental investigation, river-depth and river-floor testing and approvals.

This is precisely the type of investigation we believe should occur in Port Macquarie.

Before deciding where to build a major public swimming facility, investigate the waterway, investigate the land, investigate the access, investigate the environment and investigate the long-term costs.

What About Port Macquarie's Rivers and Estuaries?

Port Macquarie-Hastings has something many coastal communities would love to have:

a network of rivers, estuaries, beaches and waterways.

That means the community should at least ask whether some of these environments could support a public swimming facility.

Potential locations could be assessed according to criteria such as:

• water quality;

• tidal conditions;

• swimming safety;

• currents;

• depth;

• flood risk;

• boating activity;

• environmental sensitivity;

• Aboriginal cultural values;

• land ownership;

• land zoning;

• accessibility;

• parking;

• public transport;

• existing amenities;

• proximity to businesses;

• emergency access;

• construction requirements;

• operating costs; and

• whole-of-life financial sustainability.

Some locations may immediately prove unsuitable.

That's okay.

The purpose of an independent assessment is to find out.

Could a River or Estuary Pool Be More Accessible?

One of the strongest reasons to investigate alternative locations is universal accessibility.

Oxley Beach has a significant natural elevation difference between Pacific Drive and the proposed pool area.

Overcoming that terrain requires a long accessible route and substantial supporting infrastructure.

A relatively level riverfront or estuary recreation reserve could potentially provide:

• shorter accessible pathways;

• gentler gradients;

• easier accessible parking;

• closer amenities;

• simpler pedestrian connections;

• easier access for mobility devices;

• easier access for carers and families.

That doesn't mean every river site would automatically be more accessible.

It means accessibility should be one of the criteria used to identify the best site, rather than attempting to engineer accessibility into a naturally difficult location.

Existing Infrastructure Could Be an Advantage

Another consideration is what already exists around a potential site.

An established recreation precinct may already have:

• public toilets;

• parking;

• playgrounds;

• picnic facilities;

• footpaths;

• cycleways;

• lighting;

• public transport;

• cafes and businesses;

• open space;

• emergency access;

• existing utilities.

The NSW example of Como Tidal Baths illustrates how a tidal swimming facility can sit within an established recreation destination, alongside existing community facilities.

Likewise, Callan Park Tidal Baths are being integrated with the existing Bay Run, parks and sporting facilities.

This raises an important planning principle:

Don't build infrastructure twice if the community already has infrastructure that can support it.

Where possible, new facilities should complement existing community assets rather than requiring extensive new construction simply to make a site functional.

What About Safety?

A river or estuary pool would obviously need rigorous safety assessment.

It would be wrong to assume that sheltered water is automatically safe.

Each potential site would need investigation of:

• water quality;

• currents;

• tides;

• vessel movements;

• stormwater;

• flooding;

• water contamination;

• emergency access;

• drowning risk;

• shark and marine-life risks where relevant;

• visibility;

• lighting;

• supervision;

• evacuation; and

• changing environmental conditions.

The same principle applies to an ocean pool.

Safety should be demonstrated through evidence—not assumed from the type of water body.

Could River-Based Swimming Reduce Coastal Risk?

This is another question worth investigating.

Oxley Beach is an exposed ocean coastline subject to waves, storms, coastal processes and long-term coastal hazards.

A suitably located river or estuary swimming facility could potentially have a different exposure profile.

But this should never be assumed.

River sites can have their own hazards, including:

• flooding;

• erosion;

• changing water levels;

• currents;

• poor water quality following rainfall;

• sediment movement; and

• boating conflicts.

The appropriate question is therefore not:

“Are rivers safer than the ocean?”

It is:

“Which location provides the best overall balance of safety, environmental protection, accessibility, community benefit and long-term cost?”

RE1 Land Deserves Serious Consideration

Planning controls matter.

Where suitable land is already zoned RE1 Public Recreation, there may be a significant strategic advantage compared with a site where development requires changes to conservation planning controls.

That does not mean RE1 land is automatically suitable.

Every site still requires detailed environmental, cultural, engineering, traffic, accessibility and planning assessment.

But if a public recreation facility can potentially be delivered on land already intended for recreation, the community should understand why that option is or is not preferable to changing the planning framework for C2 Environmental Conservation land.

The $4.5 Million Question

The Port Macquarie Ocean Pool project has benefited from substantial government funding for investigation and feasibility work.

Protect Oxley Beach believes that funding should be used to answer the biggest question of all:

Where is the best place to put a public swimming facility?

Not simply:

“How can we make Oxley Beach work?”

There is a fundamental difference.

A genuinely independent feasibility process should investigate the full range of reasonable options before the community commits to a particular location.

That means assessing ocean pools, tidal pools, river pools and other public swimming models against the same transparent criteria.

What We Are Asking For

Protect Oxley Beach is calling for a broader and more transparent assessment.

We believe the process should:

1. Reassess the original site selection

The original site selection should be reviewed using the latest available information.

2. Compare ocean, river and estuary options

Different types of swimming facilities should be considered rather than assuming the answer must be an ocean pool on a surf beach.

3. Investigate RE1 recreation land

Potential sites already designated for public recreation should receive serious consideration.

4. Assess accessibility from the beginning

Universal access should consider the entire journey—from parking and public transport through to the water and back again.

5. Give appropriate weight to conservation values

Environmentally sensitive C2 land should not automatically be treated as interchangeable with developed recreation land.

6. Assess coastal and climate risks

Long-term resilience should form part of the site selection process.

7. Consider whole-of-life costs

The cheapest construction option is not necessarily the cheapest facility over 30, 50 or 100 years.

8. Publish the evidence

The community should be able to see the criteria, weightings, assumptions and evidence used to select the preferred site.

Port Macquarie Can Have Both

We don't believe the community has to choose between:

Protecting Oxley Beach

and

building a great public swimming facility.

We believe Port Macquarie-Hastings can have both.

The challenge is finding the right location.

A well-designed tidal or river pool could potentially become part of an existing recreation precinct. An ocean pool could potentially work at a more appropriate coastal location. A public swimming facility could be integrated with existing infrastructure rather than requiring extensive new infrastructure to overcome difficult terrain.

The examples already operating around NSW show that there is more than one way to create an outstanding public swimming experience. Como Tidal Baths, Lilli Pilli Baths and Murray Rose Pool demonstrate established tidal swimming models, while Callan Park shows how a new river swimming facility can be integrated into a broader recreation and waterfront renewal project.

The Question Should Be Bigger Than Oxley Beach

The debate about the Port Macquarie Ocean Pool should not be reduced to:

“Oxley Beach or no ocean pool?”

There is another possibility.

Find the right place.

Find a location that can provide:

Excellent swimming.
Universal access.
Safe transport.
Existing community infrastructure.
Environmental responsibility.
Cultural respect.
Coastal resilience.
Financial sustainability.
Long-term community value.

And do it without sacrificing one of Port Macquarie's remaining natural coastal landscapes.

We support a public swimming facility.

We support investigating the options.

We support evidence-based decision-making.

And we believe the most important question now is not “If not Oxley, then where?”

It is:

“What is the best location for Port Macquarie's future swimming facility—and have we genuinely looked everywhere?”