The Tasmanian Planning Commission (the TPC) is undertaking the integrated assessment of the Macquarie Point Multipurpose Stadium Project. The Commission has 12 months to undertake its assessment of the project from the time the Macquarie Point Development Corporation lodges the required documents for the project. The Corporation is acting as the “developer” of the stadium. The Corporation lodged its documents on September 17th so the TPC has to complete its assessment by 17th September 2025 and to provide its recommendations about the project to the Government.
The first step along the assessment pathway involves the TPC issuing a request for further information. A flow chart showing the whole process is available here:
This is a normal part of the assessment of any major project – the TPC reviews all the lodged documents and compares the information it receives from the Corporation with an information list detailed in its assessment Guidelines. These were finalised earlier this year after a public consultation process.
The TPC issued its request for further information in a letter to the Corporation dated 19th November 2024. The TPC in its letter clearly states that the matters detailed in the request should not be taken as the expression of any view of the merits of the project. Rather, as should be plain, the Commission seeks from the Corporation further information so that it may be properly informed in continuing its task.
Nevertheless, one thing is for sure – the project manager for the Corporation would have had a bad’s night sleep after receiving the TPC’s letter. The list provided by the Commission is very long – 12 pages worth of additional information.
Some matters are very fundamental to the nature of the project. For example, it appears that in some of the submitted reports the “Project Site” definition isn’t consistent with the Project Site as defined in the Guidelines. The Guidelines state that the Project site means “the land on which any use or development is proposed (including any associated use or development), whether privately or publicly owned. If any such land is only part of the land comprised in any title, then the whole of that land is included.”
It appears these reports have used a much narrower view of the project site by only looking at the stadium building itself.
In challenging the proponent about its understated scope of the project, the TPC also considers that some project costs have yet to be provided and wants costing details of these additional items. For example:
The stadium project includes transport infrastructure and services that are considered necessary for its operation. Information is sought on actual proposals for the use and development, or cost estimates for elements of the project such as:
-
- the event bus fleet and its operation;
- pedestrian improvements catering for peak flows; and
- access road development and infrastructure catering for public/mass transport.
(See Appendix to letter page 4)
Moreover, the TPC wants to see the capital costs for all these additional items:
The estimates and projections used in the economic and financial reports are to be based on the full capital costs required for the full operation of the stadium to realise stated benefits. Specifically, these costs are to include the cost associated with the provision or development of services and infrastructure that are necessary for the project to operate.
(See Appendix to letter page 7)
On the issue of environmental management and pollution control the TPC is unimpressed with the documents lodged:
Many of the supporting reports refer to an earlier master plan for Macquarie Point that did not include the proposed stadium and which had a substantially different site development configuration. Consequently, many of the supporting reports are either at a preliminary stage where the Guidelines have not been addressed or are not adequate as they refer to a different project.
(See Appendix to letter page 5)
On the issue of the drawings provided showing the plans of the stadium the TPC also had a lot to say:
Plans provided present a concept design rather than the Guidelines request for plans to be resolved to a ‘detailed design stage, where constructability, structural engineering and significant building code compliance issues have been adequately resolved and will not alter the proposed development’.
(See Appendix to letter page 2)
So, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation has managed to employ a wrong definition of the project in some of its submitted documents, left out significant capital costs, used environmental studies that were not fit for purpose, and has not submitted the right type of architectural drawings. And that is just a sample of the issues raised in the 12-page request for further information – go and have a look yourself:
It is unlikely that the use of the wrong definition of the project is an accident as it has the consequence of significantly understating the project cost.
This is not an auspicious start for the project.
The Corporation will be very busy over the Xmas period trying to assemble – and in some cases obtain – the missing data so they can lodge the further material with the TPC. A lot of things on the 12-page list will take substantial time to prepare, some of them requiring additional studies, eating into the TPC’s 12-month deadline.
The other message from the Request for Further Information list is that the TPC is taking its task very seriously and will provide a thorough assessment of the Project whenever – and indeed if – the Government manages to provide the required information.