L to R: Roland Browne, Hamish Saul, Barry Murphy, Tim Biles
On Wednesday 9 July and Thursday 10 July, the team behind the Our Place – Hobart representation to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) gave their evidence at the hearings being conducted as part of the Commission’s assessment of the proposed Mac Point stadium. On Tuesday 15 July, Roland Browne, acting for Our Place – Hobart, delivered his closing address.
In his opening statement, Mr Browne noted that the TPC was required to grapple with a number of planning issues, most significantly, “… the overall visual impact, especially from the Cenotaph and from Sullivans Cove and surrounding areas …”, with its judgements being “… significantly based upon visual impact assessment evidence.”
In light of the damage to those heritage values and the undoubted negative impact on Hobart’s tourism should the project proceed, he argued that the TPC was entitled to expect the proponent to provide it with accurate information – more specifically, “… it behoves the proponent to provide accurate and objective visual impact evidence to this Commission.”
Mr Browne went on to outline the proponent’s sad history to date in providing such evidence, with its original September 2024 report on the matter seemingly now supplanted by another, lodged just as the TPC hearings commenced (despite instructions having been issued and the first site visits having been done for this report in November 2024).
The original Our Place representation to the TPC, lodged in May 2025, covered a range of matters but strongly focussed on the shortcomings of the proponent’s September 2024 report and its misleading visualisations. At the core of that representation were two detailed reports prepared by Tim Biles (urban planner and designer) in collaboration with Barry Murphy (landscape architect and designer) and Yurie Tyblewych (urbanist).
You can read the full Our Place representation here:
Mr Biles also provided a report summary to assist the TPC at its hearings. You can view that here:
In wrapping up his opening statement, Mr Browne noted that the proponent’s newer report was also flawed, failing to “… provide the Commission with a satisfactory basis to make the necessary judgements.” He went on to highlight that, in particular, “… many of the photographs are taken with a 20mm lens which has the effect of minimising the height and bulk of the proposed stadium and maximising the bulk of surrounding buildings.”
[NOTE: As acknowledged in the September 2024 report lodged by the proponent, the “… 50mm lens is an industry standard for LVIA {Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment} photography as it is considered to be the closest representation of the human field of view and is widely accepted as the standard focal length when providing expert evidence in court.” (p. 25)]
Mr Browne also advised of “… significant questions about the locations from where these visualisations were taken.”
He noted that the TPC was “… entitled to expect much better from the proponent.”
He then introduced Tim Biles, Barry Murphy and Hamish Saul who spoke to their work and were available for questioning by the proponent’s KC.
You can read Mr Browne’s full opening statement here:
Hamish Saul is a graduate architect who worked with Our Place over recent months to produce a 3D model of the stadium that he then inserted into a range of photographs as requested by the Our Place experts, Barry Murphy and Tim Biles to assist them in preparing their reports.
During the course of the two week hearing period, Mr Biles and Mr Murphy were on hand to provide additional reports in response to those submitted at the last minute by the proponent. You can read those here:
In his closing address, Mr Browne concluded:
“At the end of it all, even if we discard/ignore every planning instrument, report and review, the Panel is to conduct an integrated assessment through the prism of environmental, social, economic and community issues relevant to the project.
If the Panel proceeds in this way, without reference to decades of learning about Sullivans Cove, the project will still fail to pass muster, and will fail substantially. It is too big, too dominant and too damaging to the heritage areas of Sullivans Cove and Cenotaph Hill and beyond. It will have extensive negative impacts economically and socially.
The proponent has failed to make a case for a recommendation for approval. The major planning issues identified in the DIAR remain unaddressed. No amount of glossy presentations and confident predictions will change that state of affairs.
The Panel ought to recommend under s. 26(1) the project should not proceed.”
You can read the full closing statement here:
All of the material submitted by Our Place to the TPC provides a comprehensive picture of the proponent’s continuing failure to be fully transparent with the people of Tasmania about the overwhelming visual impact of its proposed stadium at such an iconic Hobart site – at the time when many of them are voting, thinking they know what it would look like. Please read this material at your leisure.
For now, we will leave you with a few “before and after – without stadium and with stadium” images from the Our Place reports that show the true picture of the potential impact of this proposition on our Hobart.
You decide.
Engineers Building from Tasman Highway
Engineers Building from Brooker Highway
Runnymede Street, Battery Point, to Hobart Cenotaph
Corner Davey Street and Argyle Street to Hunter Street
Constitution Dock to Hunter St
The Cenotaph
