Labor’s shift in stadium position has proponents of an alternative plan enthused, but the state government will not pivot to the so-called stadium 2.0 proposal, citing “unacceptable risk” and “vast environmental challenges”.
The proposal is for a 23,000 seat roofed stadium built on reclaimed land on the River Derwent, but the government has assessed the privately-backed bid as too large a financial and engineering task.
“Based on the information and advice provided by the proponents of the alternative proposal, there is potential for the Tasmanian taxpayer to wear the entire $2.3 billion cost,” Premier Jeremy Rockliff said.
“This is not an acceptable risk.”
The proposal includes plans for a private hospital, apartments, and a hotel as well as social housing, a veterans’ museum, and a convention centre on land at Hobart’s Regatta Point, wrapping around the base of the Hobart Cenotaph.
A large slice of the estimated $2.3 billion plan was to be subsidised by yet to be revealed private investors, but the government determined it could become too financially exposed if it backed the plan.
A spokesperson said a longer construction timeline, a “complex” planning approvals process due to shared site ownership, potential Aboriginal heritage concerns and disruption of spotted handfish habitat were also reasons why it has baulked at the proposal and will instead forge ahead with its existing plan to build at Macquarie Point.
Back to the Future
The lead proponent of stadium 2.0, Dean Coleman, believes his project deserves another look, and that Labor’s change in stance “keeps the door ajar”.
“We’re looking forward to presenting our next phase to the government so they can have a further evaluation of our proposal,” Mr Coleman said.
“We’re very well established on our design, and what we are promising to bring to the Tasmanian people.”
It is a similar proposal to one he put forward in 2014, which pitched a new Royal Hobart Hospital, hotel, and war memorial on the same site, at an overall cost of $2.4 billion.
That was knocked back based on Treasury advice at the time that said the plan “significantly underestimated construction costs” and “over promised on potential benefits”.
“From a risk perspective, I think we’re a lot better managed than other projects that are currently on the table” Mr Coleman said.
But the multi-billion-dollar 2.0 project would still require up to $750m of state funds to complete. The federal government also has no appetite to divert $240m of funding earmarked for Macquarie Point to the alternative proposal.
The AFL has also waved off the proposal and the ABC understands the league would not consider a shift from Macquarie to nearby Regatta Point to be in line with the agreement’s original intent.
Mr Coleman said his plan “meets AFL pre-requisites”, but the government insists the two sites are not interchangeable.
The proponents are expected to announce their finance partners soon.
“I think that the Tasmanian people are going to be very, very pleasantly surprised when they see that their financial partner is an international and national player of enormous strength, which gives the project the credibility that it deserves,” Mr Coleman said.
Red flags
Under the proposal, 800,000 cubic metres of Jurassic dolerite fill would be excavated from beneath the Regatta Grounds and used as the reclaimed land upon which the stadium would be built.
Concept plans show that the space left vacant underneath the Regatta ground would be converted to an underground car park with about 2,500 parking spaces.
The ABC sent questions to civil contractors Hazell Brothers — which the proponents said would be recruited to undertake the works — but did not receive a response.
TasPorts chief executive Anthony Donald said the port authority had concerns about the proposal.
Mr Donald said it was “evident there would be impacts to port operations”, and the proposed 38-metre-high stadium, “does impede sight lines between the port tower and Tasman Bridge”.
Mr Coleman refutes this.
Mr Donald also said the proposal “does not include provision for the Northern Access Road”, which he said was a “critical infrastructure connection for the Port of Hobart.”
Author Richard Flanagan, a member of Our Place, a group that opposes both stadium proposals, expressed concern about former premier Paul Lennon’s involvement in the 2.0 proposal.
Federal group, which is listed as a client of Mr Lennon’s consultancy firm, Paramul, testified strongly against the Macquarie Point stadium at a public accounts committee hearing last year.
“It’s all about Paul Lennon and his commercial ambitions, to get hold of the most valuable real estate in Tasmania” Mr Flanagan said.
Mr Coleman said the engineering issues raised by the government could all be overcome.
“Every challenge is manageable, you’ve just got to have the right team. We’ve got that and we will have a fixed price for that,” he said.
“We don’t have any fear factors because we’ve done our geotech and our seismic, which is not the case for a lot of other projects.”
Despite the roadblocks, there remains support from the RSL, the Regatta Association and some sections of the broader public, including construction unions.
Master Builders Tasmania chief executive David Clerk said his organisation was “very agnostic” on which project presented a better option, while some Hobart City Council elected members have shown curiosity towards stadium 2.0.
Macquarie Point has hurdles of its own
The alternative stadium proposal was launched in response to concerns that the government would be unable to construct a stadium at Macquarie Point, jeopardising the state’s newly minted AFL licence.
Among the criticism of the Macquarie Point proposal were that it “won’t fit” the site and cannot be built within the budget of $715 million.
Macquarie Point Development Corporation chief executive Anne Beach said she was “absolutely” confident a stadium would fit on the site, and that the corporation had “stress tested” that.
A stadium footprint plan was developed by Cox Architects and released in October.
The Macquarie Point proposal would also require the relocation of the heritage-listed Goods Shed.
LoadingLoading…
