Latest news with #MacquariePoint
ABC News
5 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
What we learnt from the Macquarie Point stadium Planning Commission hearings
They've been staged in the shadow of a state election, but the Tasmanian Planning Commission hearings into the Macquarie Point stadium have provided perhaps the sharpest level of detail about the proposed project. Held over the past two weeks, the hearings have formed part of the Project of State Significance process and provided almost 30 stakeholders with the opportunity to present evidence to the planning commission panel assessing the stadium. The project proponent, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), has also had the opportunity to respond to the panel's draft integrated assessment report released earlier this year. Stakeholders were grilled by the panel and lawyers representing both the proponent, and a group opposing the stadium. So, what went on inside the hearings? Click on the bullet points to jump to each section. Lawyers representing the state, Chris Townshend KC and Anthony Spence, based most of their arguments on what constituted an appropriate use of the Macquarie Point site, and the legislation under which the MPDC was operating under. The state posited the planning commission had over relied on a 1991 planning review of the Sullivans Cove area in its draft report, and not enough weight had been given to more current and relevant legislation such as the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act. The basis for large parts of its argument was that Macquarie Point had been earmarked for development under specific legislation, and that the Project of State Significance process effectively "turned off" other planning schemes. In its opening submission, it told the panel that it would refer to a number of expert witnesses over the course of the hearings. The panel heard from local architects Leigh Woolley and Jerry De Gryse, who shared concerns about the stadium's size, scale and bulk. Mr De Gryse questioned whether the stadium precinct would be adequately publicly accessible, while Mr Woolley argued that the Domain headland would be "diminished and overwhelmed" by the stadium. Architect and heritage expert Jim Gard'ner presented revised impact assessments of the stadium on various locations around Hobart, based on fresh photo montages submitted by the proponent. He rated the stadium as having a "major" impact on the Hobart Cenotaph, but downgraded its indirect impact on four other sites. For example, Mr Gard'ner had previously rated the stadium's indirect impact on the UTAS Arts building on Hunter Street as 'very high' but downgraded that to 'medium' based on the new images. He recommended several conditions be applied to a planning permit, mostly relating to design tweaks which he believed would lessen the stadium's impact on the surrounding heritage area. Stadium designers, Cox Architecture, presented a new "fly through" of the stadium, as well as an explanation of the stadium design to date. Cox principal director Alastair Richardson was questioned on a wide range of elements, including stadium materials, roof beams, vehicle access, the proposed use of the Goods Shed and the stadium roof. Back to top The roof, and its potential impacts, were widely discussed. Planning expert Neil Shepherd, presenting on behalf of the MPDC, said, "the roof represents the element that will provide the greatest visual impact, in my opinion". But he argued "perceptions about the visual prominence of the building must be balanced against the desired role and functionality of the proposal in the chosen location". Respected town planner and urban designer Tim Biles, on behalf of the opponents group Our Place, launched a passionate critique of the stadium roof, decrying its potential impacts on the Hobart Cenotaph Mr Shepherd, in response to questions from planning commission panellist Shelley Penn, said he took the view "the significance of the cenotaph would remain, and that the roof would be another element in the view field". The level of roof transparency, and its potential reflectivity was also raised. Roland Browne, on behalf of Our Place, contended the Mount Nelson vista may not be able to be seen from the Cenotaph through the roof, due to the thickness of the ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) material. More information was submitted relating to Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania's concern with the roof, and the effect of shadowing it may cause on the cricket pitch. Back to top A major theme of the hearings was the stadium's visual impact, and how its physical presence may affect the city of Hobart. MPDC presented "visual amenity evidence", including new photo montages of the stadium from various viewpoints around the city, produced by architect Chris Goss of Melbourne-based firm Orbit Solutions. In response, anti-stadium group Our Place submitted an analysis of Mr Goss's images, compiled by landscape architect Barry Murphy. Our Place contested that the Orbit images presented the stadium with a "transparent" roof rather than a "translucent" roof, and questioned why Mr Goss's photo montages were compiled from viewpoints that were obscured by, in one example, a street sign, and, in a shot from the cenotaph, by a visiting cruise ship. Our Place had previously submitted its own photo montages, compiled by local architect Hamish Saul. In a separate submission though, Mr Murphy, Mr Saul and Mr Goss co-signed a "statement of agreed facts" that concluded that Orbit's 3D model of the stadium building was more accurate in relation to the stadium's materiality, its form and mass, and its geometry, compared with Mr Saul's. However, the statement acknowledged a difference in opinion about the roof rendition and focal length used to take the photos, which Mr Murphy argued in his submission should have been 50mm instead of 20mm. Back to top The panel heard from KPMG economists who prepared economic, financial impact and social benefits reports for the proponent last year. Michael Malakellis and David Harradine argued while their economic analysis found the benefit-cost ratio for the stadium would be less than one, they stressed the project should not be assessed in strict economic terms, given its unquantifiable social and brand value benefits. Stadiums Tasmania chief executive James Avery also made a lengthy presentation to the panel, in which he revealed an updated operating model for the stadium had been developed. He said it estimated the stadium would make $2.2 million per year before taxes, depreciation and amortisation — a way of managing the cost of intangible assets or loans — as opposed to a loss of more than $3 million per year under a previous model. It was based on the new capital cost of the stadium, which was $945 million, but, unlike before, it now includes state ownership of food and beverage facilities, advertising boards, and premium hospitality. The stadium is now forecast to host 37 major events, 40 2-day conferences and 260 "minor events" such as business functions and corporate dinners per year, accounting for 334 events across 377 days. Representatives from Tourism Tasmania and Business Events Tasmania also fronted the hearings highlighting the significance of the proposed 1,500-person conference centre, as did independent local economist Graeme Wells, who disputed some of KPMG's findings. The panel also heard from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, which had expressed concern about noise and vibration from the stadium during both the construction and operational phases. In its submission, it proposed a number of conditions that should be applied, should planning approval for the stadium be granted. Back to top The panel heard a planned underground car park has been reduced from three levels to two, and from 532 spaces to 374, reduced to keep the car park above the groundwater table. The car park is expected to service the entire Macquarie Point precinct and is estimated to cost $97 million. However, according to the MPDC, that cost will not be worn by the state, as the car park "is intended to be delivered as a commercial development opportunity and run by a private operator". The MPDC also states the car park is not required for the stadium's operations. Graeme Steverson of consultants WSP presented to the panel on transport matters, on behalf of the MPDC. He modelled a range of traffic and transport scenarios for large-scale sporting and concert events. Cox Architecture submitted diagrams that showed egress from the stadium in the event of an emergency, and fielded questions about the safety of the venue. Back to top Several stakeholders raised what they said was a lack of consultation by the MPDC and the state Government to the panel as a major concern. Daniel Hanna, representing Federal Group, which owns several properties on the Hobart waterfront, said the stadium would be detrimental to his company's business and that Federal had not been adequately consulted. Lawyers representing the MPDC referenced seven meetings between 2023 and 2024 between the proponent and Federal regarding the stadium, but Mr Hanna did not consider those meetings as adequate consultation. Historian and Aboriginal heritage experts Greg Lehman and Daphne Habibis echoed those sentiments, as did Nala Mansell from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Ms Mansell said Aboriginal land at Macquarie Point should be transferred to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Back to top The panel heard from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which had previously expressed concern about groundwater and contaminated fill at Macquarie Point. The MPDC submitted that only about 10 per cent of fill material earmarked to be excavated will be "level three" material — material that requires an additional level of disposal and storage management. The EPA submission outlined conditions it believed should be imposed, should the stadium development proceed, including that the director of the EPA be able to approve a stadium Construction Environmental Management Plan, and have a role in approving stadium design plans. It also wants to be the body responsible for enforcing those, and other conditions. Back to top The Tasmania Football Club, the Devils, was represented by chief executive officer Brendon Gale, who told the panel via a presentation that the stadium was crucial to the club's business case and viability. He said that "net stadium revenues" accounted for 47 per cent of a typical AFL club's revenue and called them "the most significant driver of financial competitive and financial strength" of a club. He added that stadium revenues accounted for just 43 per cent of club revenue 10 years ago. Mr Gale said there existed a strong correlation between a club's off-field financial strength and their on-field success. Back to top
ABC News
27-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Federal Group wants 'independent assessment and oversight' of Macquarie Point stadium
Daniel Hanna I think we always thought this would be the final process. Obviously, we had a debate not that long ago about referring the stadium proposal to the Project of State Significance and the Planning Commission. So we put in submissions in good faith. And yeah, I certainly believe probably the process should continue. I think we need some independent assessment and oversight of this proposal. Obviously, we've got quite a number of concerns about what is proposed for the stadium at Macquarie Point. I want the opportunity to hear them and think they should be independently assessed. David Reilly So to be clear, you feel like this overriding legislation that's been proposed or that's been supported, that's already been tabled and supported by both Labor and Liberal, we're expecting after the election, you feel that that is the wrong approach, Daniel Hanna? Daniel Hanna Yes, absolutely we do. I've had a good look through that draft legislation, which was previously tabled. And there obviously was a consultation process. We put in a submission to that, but we had a lot of concerns. I mean, effectively that draft legislation, if anyone can have a look at it, I'd encourage them to do so. Really what that took away was all of the, for example, the appeal rights for any third party. It would override any piece of legislation, anything in the planning scheme, and also would give the Minister of the Day absolute discretion to make amendments at any time. So really there's, we thought all of the usual protections that neighbours and other parties have would be overridden. And it's, I don't think a good piece of legislation at all. David Reilly So opening submissions today, you're not due to give evidence, I think for a week or so, is that right? But what's the gist of what you'll be telling the commission? Daniel Hanna Yeah, look, we're appearing next week and we'll be making our submissions. Obviously we put in a comprehensive submission to the TPC and we'll be making submissions along those lines. I mean, we've got a number of concerns and certainly some of the more general ones are around this. We believe this stadium is just, what's proposed is in the wrong location. It's in a heritage zone. We, as a private sector operator and investor, have developed in good faith, complying with the existing Sullivan's Cove planning scheme, which represents a lot of those heritage values. And we just don't think a 55 metre tall stadium of the bulk and height that's proposed is appropriate right to the edge of Evans Street. And it will forever change what is a beautiful maritime heritage zone that's valued by Tasmanians and visitors. David Reilly Well, also, of course, valued by your company, it does push up pretty closely against some of your own accommodation assets. Exactly what's in that area that Federal Group currently owns and operates? Daniel Hanna So we own and operate the Henry Jones Art Hotel and the facilities that surround the Henry Jones. We've also got the Mac One Hotel, both on the waterfront. Clearly the Henry Jones is probably the most impacted. If you look at that iconic vista, I guess, from the docks from Mures over towards Hunter Street and the Henry Jones, it really is one of the iconic images in Tasmania. Unfortunately, with the stadium that's proposed, we'll have a massive structure looming right over the top of Henry Jones, right to the edge of Evans Street. We've also got some other very direct concerns around the stadium during construction and operation in that location. And that goes to things like getting access, for example. We believe Evans Street will be closed a significant proportion of the time during construction and then operation. And that's how our guests, our staff and our suppliers can all access our hotels. We're very concerned about access. We're also concerned about other things, yeah, noise, lights and shadowing, and parking as well, to be frank. David Reilly We've had a couple of people asking about this Mac 2.0, the Stadium 2.0 proposal, backed by Dean Coleman and of course, former Labor Premier, Paul Lennon. One text are asking, is it true that Federal Group is behind Stadium 2.0? Now it's sort of gone off the boil a little bit, this project, but is that still your preference, that site? Daniel Hanna Yeah, look, that would still be our preference. I think it deals with a lot of the heritage issues that we've got concerns about. So I would certainly encourage whenever we run over this election and we have a new government in place to consider that proposal. But let me first of all, address the concern raised in that text. I can absolutely tell you that Federal is definitely not behind 2.0. David Reilly So not linked to 2.0 and Paul Lennon? Daniel Hanna No, we have nothing to do with that project. Obviously the proponents of that project have presented to us in the past as a company, many months ago. And we thought that that was a very good project, worthy of consideration, would address a lot of our concerns and is, I think, still worthy of consideration. We think it's a much better location and I think delivers a better bang for the buck.
ABC News
24-06-2025
- Sport
- ABC News
Jeremy Rockliff strikes deal with cricket authorities for Hobart AFL stadium roof solution
A new agreement struck between Cricket Australia, Cricket Tasmania and Premier Jeremy Rockliff aims to ensure all forms of cricket will be able to be played at the Macquarie Point stadium, should the proposed arena earn planning approval and eventually be built. The 'heads of agreement' signed by the three stakeholders earlier this month, before the state election was called, lists 16 key principles agreed upon by the three parties, borne out of concern from cricket over the current design of the stadium's proposed roof, and fears cricket will not be able to be played underneath it. The agreement, co-signed by Cricket Tasmania's Dominic Baker, Cricket Australia's Todd Greenberg and Premier Rockliff, has been lodged in the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) as part of Cricket Tasmania's submission to the planning authority ahead of Project of State Significance (POSS) hearings. It includes agreements the three parties "work together to resolve to the satisfaction of all relevant parties the final specifications for the stadium roof" and that discussions for the "resolution and optimisation of the roof design will involve senior representatives from both Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania, with support from a highly experienced expert in stadia design, operation and management". Cricket's primary concern has been about the impact of shadows moving across the field of play, in particular the cricket pitch block, cast by the stadium roof's supporting structure. All parties have agreed to work together to finalise a design that supports "a safe and acceptable playing, operational, including spectator viewing and broadcast environment". The heads of agreement marks a formalisation of discussions between cricket and the government, which agrees cricket is an essential stakeholder in the stadium It has been designed to mitigate fears the stadium could proceed without first being cleared by Cricket Australia and the International Cricket Council, leaving the stadium without content crucial to its business case and leaving Tasmanian cricket fixtures without a long-term home. In a supporting letter, Mr Baker told TPC chair John Ramsey the heads of agreement "acknowledges that a suitable multipurpose all-weather roofed stadium presents a world-leading opportunity to play the highest levels of cricket across all formats of the game uninterrupted". He said the heads of agreement "reinforces the parties' combined commitment to identifying a stadium design that aligns with and delivers on playing, operational and broadcast requirements" and that "provides a pathway for resolution of issues with the proposed roof design that have been identified as challenging for cricket" The three parties also agreed to work together to develop a business case for cricket's planned new high-performance centre, and a new Australian turf management centre of excellence, which would be presented to the federal government. There's also a commitment to develop a transition plan which would see cricket move out of Bellerive Oval, and into a new high-performance centre at Seven Mile Beach, with major fixtures relocated from Bellerive to the new stadium. However, there remains no commitment from either Cricket Australia or Cricket Tasmania to contribute to the cost of the build, despite a range of pricey provisions being made for the sport. Cricket believes its ability to bring top-level international content into the new stadium should be considered as its contribution, in lieu of any direct funding. Cricket has long been supportive of a roofed stadium at Macquarie Point, but its enthusiasm was dampened earlier this year when shadow modelling revealed that the proposed roof's supporting structure would cast moving shadows across the centre wicket block. It prompted cricket authorities to co-sign a letter to the Tasmanian government declaring the stadium would be "unlikely to be conducive to hosting test matches and could be challenged in hosting One Day and T20" fixtures. It also called for a rethink of the fixed roof element of the stadium, and a "discussion around what opportunity there is to consider a stadium design option that does not have a roof or that has an operable roof". Government delegates and cricket officials recently travelled to Dunedin in New Zealand to analyse the effect of shadows cast by the roof of the Forsyth Barr stadium onto the playing surface. In May, Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC) chief executive Anne Beach said the design team had looked at other venues and "found that the dispersed nature of the shadow is quite minor when you experience it on the field". The MPDC was also looking into developing a "test rig" to help formulate a solution, but it is unclear how far that has progressed. There are no known plans to pivot away from a fixed roof toward a retractable or roofless solution. The MPDC was contacted for comment. Cricket Tasmania is one of a number of stakeholders that will front a TPC hearing today, as part of the POSS planning process under which the stadium is still being assessed. The hearings will take two weeks and feature submissions from the stadium's proponents, Tasmania Football Club, Stadiums Tasmania, as well as community groups Our Place, the Glebe Residents Association, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, and the Hobart City Council. The POSS process is continuing, despite pre-election plans by the government to abandon it in favour of attempting to progress special stadium legislation through both houses of parliament.
ABC News
15-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Tasmanian Labor consulting on 'right process' for Macquarie Point stadium approval
Tasmanian Labor says it is trying to understand what the "right approval process" is for the Macquarie Point stadium, suggesting it may walk back its support for the fast-track process currently in place. The $945 million proposed waterfront stadium is being assessed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission as a Project of State Significance (POSS). But the government and others involved in the project fear the project will be unable to meet the strict timelines set out by the AFL. In June, knowing it had the support of Labor, the Liberal government introduced special legislation that would have allowed the project to bypass the planning system. It was due to be debated later this month. Instead, following a no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff, Tasmania is facing its fourth election in seven years. Now, Labor appears to be reconsidering its support for the legislation. When asked at a press conference if Labor would be pursuing the enabling legislation, leader Dean Winter said the party was "consulting" with stakeholders about the right process. "We need to make sure that we can get this thing built," said Mr Winter. "We've looked at the legislation and also understood from Legislative councillors that there are some real challenges there, so we'll be making announcements around that following consultation." The Legislative Council is ruled by independents and minor parties at a nine-to-six split, meaning even with both major parties on board, nothing is guaranteed. Regardless of which process it goes through — legislation or POSS — the project has to be approved by both houses of parliament. "We need to make sure whatever goes to the Legislative Council can actually get approval," Mr Winter said. "That's going to require a lot of hard work and a parliamentary process that makes sense." He would not be drawn on whether he thought the legislation would pass the upper house in its current form. "We have to get it approved and finding the right approval process to maximise the chances of actually getting it built is the most important priority here," Mr Winter said. Regardless of whether Labor wins government on July 19, its support is likely to be essential. Greens candidate Helen Burnet said while she would like Labor to walk away from the stadium altogether, she hoped the party would at least drop its support for the legislation. "They've been very unclear in the past. They've flip-flopped. It's really important with such a massive issue that they're making it very clear for Tasmanians before they vote.
ABC News
08-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Labor's Dean Winter says he won't give up the proposed Macquarie Point stadium 'for anything'
The leaders of both major Tasmanian political parties remain staunchly committed to a new Hobart stadium, and AFL team, even if it costs them a shot at governing the state. Both Labor leader Dean Winter, and Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff have re-affirmed their support for the Macquarie Point stadium and Tasmania Devils AFL club, in the midst of political upheaval triggered by a successful no-confidence motion in the premier by Labor. The move means the premier will either be replaced, or Tasmanians will be sent to the ballot box for the fourth time in seven years. The issue of the proposed stadium, which is slated to cost almost $1 billion to build, has fractured the state and if an election is confirmed, it is set to heavily influence the makeup of the next parliament, such is its prominence as an issue among voters. The stadium is unpopular across Tasmania but is a key condition of the licence agreement between the Tasmanian government and the AFL for a team. That team, the Devils, is almost universally popular. On Saturday, both leaders refused to waiver on their support for the stadium, and the AFL club that it unlocks, ahead of a likely election that appears destined to result in a hung parliament. On ABC Hobart's Grandstand radio program, Labor leader Dean Winter was asked if the stadium could be used as a bargaining chip in exchange for crossbench support, if his party was required to form the first Tasmanian Labor government in more than a decade. PRESENTER: In the situation where there's a genuine opportunity for you to form government, with crossbenchers, and you're in touching distance of forming government, can you rule out swapping the stadium for support? DEAN WINTER: I'm not giving up this stadium. Let me be clear. I think getting an AFL team would be the biggest thing since Mona. It'll be incredible for our state, and I'm not giving it up for anything. PRESENTER: So the stadium is off the table in any negotiation? DEAN WINTER: We are absolutely committed to the stadium. We wouldn't be negotiating building a stadium for that sort of thing, no. PRESENTER: Even if it could cost you government? DEAN WINTER: I am totally and utterly committed to it. It was a strong commitment to the contentious build in a week when the Labor leader felt the scorn of the Tasmania Devils football club, and of Devils fans who allege his successful no-confidence motion in the premier has placed the stadium, and the team, in jeopardy. It comes off the back of a letter to the AFL, which further confirmed his support for a stadium, and continued allegiance to the build despite an unpopular shift in planning processes for the project, rushed special legislation that was due to be voted on next month, and a rising cost to the state to build it. Premier Jeremy Rockliff has championed the stadium, and the Devils, since signing the controversial team licence agreement with the AFL in early 2023. At a press conference in Devonport on Saturday, the premier, who has so far refused to resign his post despite Labor's successful no-confidence motion against him, declared similar support: REPORTER: On the stadium, are you taking it off the table in any negotiations? Is it an absolute rock solid guarantee that stadium is part of your future plans? JEREMY ROCKLIFF: Yes. REPORTER: Even if you can't form government? JEREMY ROCKLIFF: Yes. REPORTER: The stadium is part of your plans? JEREMY ROCKLIFF: Of course it is. I'm passionate about it. We've been waiting for an AFL or AFLW team for over four decades here. But it's unknown whether a different Liberal leader would ditch the stadium in order to shore up crossbench support, in a bid to dodge an election and continue to govern. So far, Jeremy Rockliff has been unchallenged for the leadership of his party. Whether that changes in the coming days remains to be seen. The AFL's club presidents, who play a major role in the approval of new team licences, and who rubberstamped the deal between Tasmania and the league, are watching closely. Hawthorn president Andy Gowers told the ABC any changes to the current deal would lead to a reconsideration of the agreement that grants Tasmania its long-awaited team. "If there's any change to that, based on what happens from a government point of view, or any other reason, then we'd have to reconsider. "So, at the moment, we've voted for the team and stadium, and if there's any change to what we've agreed to, we will have to consider it." Mr Gowers will be one of 18 presidents who will speak with Devils chair Grant O'Brien in Melbourne next Tuesday. When asked what questions he would have for Mr O'Brien, he said: "How can I help?" Cold water has also been poured on the prospect of a pivot to the alternate, privately backed "Stadium 2.0" proposal for a 23,000-seat roofed stadium at nearby Regatta Point, jutting into freshly reclaimed land on the River Derwent. The ABC understands no meetings have taken place between project proponents Dean Coleman and former Labor premier Paul Lennon, and the AFL. It is also understood there is no desire from the AFL to consider the alternative proposal. In a statement to the ABC, an AFL spokesperson said: "A clear component of the licence bid from the Tasmanian taskforce was a new roofed stadium at Macquarie Point with a capacity of at least 23,000. "The AFL's continued position is that this is a condition for the grant of the 19th licence." The Liberal government has never supported the 2.0 project, declaring it recently to be "dead, buried and cremated". But Mr Winter conceded Labor would maintain a level of support for the concept, believing it could come into play should the Macquarie Point project be unable to proceed. He said he met with proponent Dean Coleman in April, but that Macquarie Point remained his priority unless there was no way it could be built. "I told him that, as I continue to say, we support the premier's proposal, we are going to support the process, at that stage I think we [referring to the] POSS [Project of State Significance planning process] but since then we have announced support for the [Macquarie Point stadium enabling] legislation."
