14°C |
Wednesday August 19, 2026 
19 August 2026
A battle over the future of one of Sydney Harbour’s most prominent yacht clubs is heading to a member vote, with a group of Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron members campaigning against plans to transform part of its Kirribilli waterfront and end on-site out-of-water boat repairs.
Members will meet at Loreto Kirribilli on August 25 to vote on three resolutions that could determine the future of the Squadron’s waterfront precinct. The club’s General Committee is asking members to endorse its Squadron 2035 strategy, while dissident members have forced two competing resolutions onto the agenda seeking to preserve the existing boatyard.
At the heart of the dispute is the club’s hardstand beside Sydney Harbour.
Under Squadron 2035, around half of the area now used to lift boats from the water would become a multi-use Sailing Centre incorporating dinghy launching and storage, learn-to-sail and school programs, training and events, as well as a gym and other fitness facilities.
Slipping, antifouling, sandblasting and other below-waterline repairs would eventually cease on the site, although the Squadron says most marine trades would continue servicing boats while they remained in the water.
The General Committee argues the changes are necessary to reverse an ageing and declining membership and make greater use of valuable waterfront land.
Its strategic plan says 66 per cent of members are aged 60 or older, the median age is 69 and the club lost a net 95 members in its most recent year. Without intervention, it forecasts around 730 fewer members by 2036 and a 42.7 per cent real increase in Metropolitan membership subscriptions.
“Our membership is ageing and shrinking, a largely fixed $6m cost base is falling on fewer members, and Squadron 2035 is the plan to grow our way out instead of charging our way out,” the strategy states.
The club says its 46-year-old travel lift is unlikely to pass mandatory safety recertification in 2030 and estimates retaining haul-out operations would require about $700,000 for a replacement lift and $150,000 in work health and safety remediation.
But a group representing more than 100 members is urging members to vote against the committee’s first resolution, arguing that endorsing the strategy would effectively authorise an irreversible decision on the waterfront before alternatives have been sufficiently tested.
Their campaign material, titled “Let’s get it right”, argues that planning approval remains uncertain, some capital costs have not been included and an alternative model under which slipping operations are leased to an external operator deserves further investigation. The members want a working group established before the club commits to the waterfront redevelopment.
They are recommending members vote no to Resolution 1, but yes to Resolutions 2 and 3.
Resolution 2 would require the Squadron to maintain its worksheds, travel lift and shipyard and continue providing out-of-water repair and maintenance facilities.
Resolution 3 would require those facilities to remain until members voted through a special resolution to amend the club’s constitution.
The General Committee is recommending precisely the opposite voting pattern.
It says Resolution 2 would oblige future committees to continue operating the boatyard regardless of financial, regulatory or work health and safety circumstances, while Resolution 3 would inappropriately embed an operational matter in the constitution and restrict future boards.
The committee also rejects suggestions that the plan amounts simply to replacing a boatyard with a gym. It says sailing remains the centre of the strategy and that the gym is one component of a broader Sailing Centre. A club survey found 41 per cent of members said they would use a gym, while 26 per cent said they would use new dinghy launching and sailing programs.
The same survey has become part of the argument between the two camps. The club says 1,329 members responded and 58 per cent of voting-eligible respondents supported its strategy, rising to 69 per cent among those who had formed a view.
The opposing members question how some survey questions were framed and say members should have another opportunity to consider options before the waterfront decision is effectively made.