UTAS works its baleful influence on the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan

Pictured below: A solution to the traffic chaos a 48% increase in Mt Nelson and Sandy Bay’s resident population in less than twenty years would create, proffered in the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan Discussion Paper. (I kid you not!)

Introduction

In parts, the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan Discussion Paper (the Discussion Paper), released by the Hobart City Council (HCC) in late November 2023, reads like a UTAS propaganda piece and it is clear that, through whatever means, UTAS has exercised undue influence over the document.

I will comment here on five issues raised by the Discussion Paper, with further detail provided in the Background section below.

1. The magic “7,850” expected increase in resident population

The Discussion Paper states that Mt Nelson and Sandy Bay are expected to have 7,850 new residents by 2042 (page 23).  This is a massive increase of 48% on the current population of 16,480 (page 22) in less than a twenty-year period. It is all the more striking and questionable as, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, at June 2022 Sandy Bay had the third highest population density of any area in Tasmania.

On page 6, the Discussion Paper states:

“Mount Nelson and Sandy Bay continue to grow and change. The Tasmanian Government has set growth targets for the Hobart region including Mount Nelson and Sandy Bay through the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy 2010-2035…and the 30 Year Greater Hobart Plan. The projected growth in Mount Nelson and Sandy Bay must be planned to ensure it occurs in a sustainable way aligned with the values of the existing and future community.”

If this is meant to provide authority for the 7,850 figure, it does not.

First, the population assumption used in the 30 Year Greater Hobart Plan is contestable.

Second, and more significantly, as will be shown in detail in the Background section, there is anyway no link between the 7,850 figure and the population assumption in the Greater Hobart Plan. In fact, it is clear that the number must have come from elsewhere.

The only reasonable conclusion from this is that the Discussion Paper is trying to create a scenario which requires the UTAS housing solution provided by CBD relocation and redevelopment of the Sandy Bay campus site. That is, the Discussion Paper has (artificially) created a problem which only the Messiah led UTAS can solve.

I lodged a Right to Information application (with fee paid) with the HCC on 21 November 2023, seeking the derivation of the 7,850 figure.  I am yet to be advised that my application has been accepted.

2. Supposed relocation of just “some educational premises” – pull the other one!

In a three-page section of the Discussion Paper (pages 60-62) that appears to be devoted to special pleading for UTAS’ relocation plans, we are told:

“In response to UTAS expressing their intention to relocate some of their educational premises from the Sandy Bay campus, the precinct is identified as a key redevelopment area, offering opportunity for well-considered staged urban renewal.” (page 60; my bolding)

This is meant to sound reassuring, but it is so disingenuous it is laughable.  The Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) and Sandy Bay Masterplan that were submitted by UTAS to the HCC on 6 December 2021 required the removal of the “educational overlay” from the Sandy Bay site (See Part 1 of the PSA, page 1 and throughout), with UTAS completely relocating to the Hobart CBD.

UTAS withdrew the PSA and Sandy Bay Masterplan when 74% of Hobart’s population voted “no” to the question of whether they supported UTAS’ proposed relocation from Sandy Bay to the CBD. However, UTAS plans to submit a new PSA and a minimally changed Masterplan on completion of the Neighbourhood Plan process.  I say minimally changed, as UTAS must maximise revenue from Sandy Bay to pay for the building works it envisages in the CBD, as well as its ultra-ambitious building program planned for the Sandy Bay campus site itself. UTAS would not be able to afford significant changes to the Masterplan even on its own wildly optimistic calculations. When revenue maximisation is the aim, “well-considered staged urban renewal”, will be the first victim, together with community sentiment.

• Even on its own fanciful calculations, UTAS makes only a marginal profit over thirty years on its development of Sandy Bay, when the costs of its CBD building program are accounted for.  On my more realistic calculations the cost of relocation would makes a huge loss far outweighing the cost of refurbishing the Sandy Bay campus, totally discrediting the relocation plan. (I will provide updated figures in my next blog post. See for now my blog post Deloitte reports should sound death knell for UTAS relocation – Part 1).

• To the extent UTAS is forced to adapt its Masterplan in response to issues raised by the community, the marginal ‘profit’ in UTAS’ calculations would be eroded, while on my calculations losses would be increased.

3. The canard of “aging” building stock

Again, in its special pleading for UTAS’ relocation plans, the Discussion Paper states that there is an opportunity to:

“Acknowledge some of the building stock is aging and provide for mixed-use activation, potentially incorporating adaptive reuse of existing buildings where appropriate.” (page 60)

The use of the word “aging” here suggests that some of the buildings on UTAS’ Sandy Bay campus site are old, and that while some might be able to be reused, others are beyond their use by date.

All buildings age and to suggest that buildings may need to be pulled down provides a green light for environmental vandalism, smacks of the worst excesses of the disposable society and makes no financial sense.

In this regard, I cite Carl Elafante’s already classic maxim that:

“The greenest building… is the one that is already built.” (2007)

I also cite UTAS’ own consultants, Clarke Hopkins Clarke, in the Sandy Bay Masterplan Report:

“Re-purposing existing buildings is recommended to support sustainability and cost benefits as there is less material waste and embodied energy in re-use than a new building. It also encourages innovative design outcomes and preserves the building, acknowledging the legacy of the Site and existing place identity.” (UTAS Sandy Bay Masterplan Report, page 42; 8th page of pdf)

How much better then to be able to refurbish buildings for current educational purposes at a much lower cost?

I also note that in its December 2021 Sandy Bay Masterplan, UTAS was planning to reuse a number of major buildings, for money making purposes and to avoid heritage scrutiny (see Background for details). This included many of UTAS’ older buildings. At the same time, UTAS planned to demolish relatively new and refurbished buildings, including the award-winning Centenary Building, the refurbished Law School, the new Pharmacy Building, the new Chemistry Labs and the relatively new Old IMAS building.

This all rather makes a mockery of the Discussion Paper’s reference to “aging” building stock.  I note in passing that it also makes a mockery of UTAS’ so-called Green Bond, which – as I have frequently pointed out – is not green (see for example my blog post UTAS CBD move and Green Bond mess threaten Tasmania’s finances).

4. Transport realities

Residents of Sandy Bay and Mount Nelson will rightly wonder how the road transport network of these suburbs could possibly cope with a 48% increase in the resident population by 2042.

Sandy Bay and lower Mt Nelson are essentially strip developments limited by river and mountain. The only two major roads connecting with Hobart City and other suburbs are Sandy Bay Road and Churchill Avenue, narrow two lane roads (Sandy Bay Road broadens into four lanes in part of the most congested area), which are already overloaded in peak hours and with no potential for capacity increase.  Upper Mt Nelson is somewhat better served with its connection to the Southern Outlet, but this is congested at peak hour.  Rat-runs through residential streets provide partial solutions, but they are only partial and, of course, are undesirable, including for safety reasons.

The Discussion Paper’s answer, on pages 76 -81, to the traffic chaos a 48% increase in the resident population of Sandy Bay and Mt Nelson would create, is to indulge in the sort of aspirational, cliched and generalised discussion of future transport options that currently abounds – and with lots of pretty pictures.

The discussion paper tells us about “walkable neighbourhoods”, more “frequent” and better buses, “bus lanes” (where?), discouraging “rat running” (how does that help?), “traffic management initiatives” (such as?) and provision of “a ferry service”.  

These sorts of discussions always miss key points, including the high demands these days on parents and grandparents to drop off/pick up children from school, and the huge range of out of school activities now available to children, as well as to shop.

I make two observations:

• To the extent that the concepts in the Discussion Paper come to fruition, they will have more relevance to other (less densely populated, less topographically constricted) suburbs of Hobart and, indeed, the emergent ‘dormitory suburbs’ around Hobart.

• The application of real transport solutions throughout Greater Hobart would completely undermine UTAS’ intermittent claim that moving UTAS to the CBD would increase student accessibility and numbers, which rests on portraying Sandy Bay as inaccessible to potential outer suburb students.  This is a claim for which UTAS has never offered any real evidence, but frequent express bus options and a ferry service would no doubt be welcomed by students at the Sandy Bay campus site. (See my blog post UTAS heading towards insolvency – UTAS Council and State Parliamentarians on notice on the issue of accessibility).

One point surprisingly missed by the Discussion Paper is that work from home is likely to become increasingly prevalent in the coming decades. If it does, this would create opportunities for people to ‘work in the CBD’ while enjoying the lifestyle of towns like Sorrell without any need to commute, obviating any need for ruinous overdevelopment of already crowded suburbs.

• Ironically, UTAS is increasingly imposing a work from home regime on students as it scrimps for space in the CBD and seeks to reduce teaching costs, including by the use of three-year-old recorded lectures.  However, while students should always be able to access lectures and tutorials on-line, they should also always have the option of face-to-face learning and of interacting socially with students and teachers/academics.  This is something fully recognised by top-notch Vice-Chancellors (see for example this speech by Sydney University’s Professor Mark Scott AO).

5. The issue of bias in the draft Discussion Paper

The Discussion Paper was sprung late on HCC Councillors (see video of HCC discussion of 30 November, begins 19 minutes 40 seconds in).

Recognising a bias in the document towards UTAS’ proposed relocation from Sandy Bay to the CBD, they added a disclaimer to the text:

“This discussion paper is not an endorsement of the UTAS intention to relocate from the Sandy Bay campus, and
should not be taken as such.” (page ii)

Even so, the document, which was drafted by consultancy firm Urbis under supervision by HCC staff, remains biased. UTAS certainly has a way of working its influence behind the scenes and while I will not guess how it has done so in this instance (although a cooperative response to my Right to Information application may provide an answer), I make the following observations.

First, like probably nearly every consultant in the country by now, Urbis has previously acted as a consultant to UTAS, that is, it has had a commercial relationship with UTAS (and may hope to do again).

• Research by Urbis has been (misleadingly) cited by UTAS, most notably by Chancellor Watkins in her Vote Yes ad in the Mercury, as part of its bogus claim that:

“The average city worker spends over $10,000 per year at nearby businesses. With 1,500 staff moving to the city, that’s an extra $15 million spent at small businesses in the area – cafes, restaurants, hairdressers and retail stores.“

I have written extensively on this deception (including in section (2) of my blog post UTAS lacks any credibility on CBD move), which – to UTAS’ discredit – continues to this day (see the second FAQ on this page).

Even if not responsible for this deception, Urbis should have intervened to stop its name being used in this way. 

Second, the HCC itself has generally, and frequently loudly, aligned itself with UTAS’ proposed CBD relocation, from the time Lord Mayor Sue Hickey plighted her troth to Peter Rathjen’s Hobart CBD relocation plan in March 2017, long before it became public knowledge, to the mindless and petulant support of Councillors Burnett and Harvey for all things UTAS, to the less than balanced work produced by members of HCC staff. This alignment has been less pronounced since the Electors Poll and Council elections last year, but still persists.

• I have commented on Councillor Burnett before – see my blog post How to stop the UTAS move – the time to act is now! On Councillor Harvey, see his display in the video of the HCC discussion of 30 November 2023, beginning 19 minutes 40 seconds in.

• Numerous HCC documents read like they could have been written by UTAS including, for example, the Central Hobart Precincts Plan: UNDERSTANDING CENTRAL HOBART BASELINE REPORT FEBRUARY 2020.

Background

The magic “7,850” increase in resident population

The 30 Year Greater Hobart Plan STRATEGY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE (the STRATEGY) of August 2022 is the document that purportedly includes the population assumption used in the Discussion Paper.

The STRATEGY provides these population growth projections for the Greater Hobart area on page 13:

While it might generally be expected that the Medium Series projection would be used for planning purpose, the STRATEGY, after not very convincing argument, determined that:

“…it is reasonable to assume that the growth rate may be greater than the Medium Series projections, and it would be prudent to plan for a population growth rate closer to the High Series. On that basis, a working figure of an additional 60,000 persons by 2050 has been adopted… and this will help inform future demand for housing.

This figure of an additional 60,000 persons in Greater Hobart is not a population target but is an estimate of what may occur and will inform forward planning throughout the Greater Hobart Plan. This estimate will be subject to regular review over time as population growth trends become apparent.”

The assumption of a 60,000 increase in Greater Hobart’s population by 2060 can be argued on many grounds, including that the STRATEGY used five-year-old projections (six years old now). Here I note that the STRATEGY itself signaled the need for more up to date projections (page 13), the Australian Bureau of Statistics released its most recent population projections (national, state and regional) on 23 November 2023 and the Tasmanian Government is in the process of updating its population strategy.

I conclude that the assumption of a 60,000 increase in Hobart’s population is methodologically questionable and is already out of date.

• I also draw readers’ attention to leading demographer Lisa Denny’s excellent article on the value and limitations of population projections.

Even accepting the 60,000 figure, however, there is no link with the 7,850 figure used in the HCC’s Discussion Paper.

On page 119, the 30 Year Greater Hobart Plan STRATEGY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE provides an Appendix called Expected Urban Growth – distribution of additional population and dwellings by 2050. This covers the whole of Greater Hobart and the complete table is provided at Appendix 1, but here is the section relating to the HCC area:

Assuming equal shares of the additional population of 7,500 assigned to “Scattered Hobart infill” for Sandy Bay and the other three named suburbs, Sandy Bay’s expected growth by 2050 would be 2,575 (800 + 1875) new residents compared to the 7,850 by 2042 in the Discussion Paper. It is clear that the additional resident number of 7,850 by 2042 must have come from elsewhere.

• Even the reasonableness of expecting Sandy Bay and Mt Nelson to bear an increase in resident of population of 2,575 by 2050 would need to be considered in light of Sandy Bay’s already high population density and the constraints on Sandy Bay and Mt Nelson’s traffic network. It would also need to be considered in light of the potential for growth in the unfilled spaces of Clarence and Kingston, as well as towns close to Hobart, where the likelihood of increased working from home has real potential to ease traffic congestion.

Supposed relocation of just “some educational premises” – pull the other one!

As they include some points I have not made in the body of this post, I will repeat here some paragraphs from my blog post Deloitte reports should sound death knell for UTAS relocation – Part 1:

“The Mount Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood (MNSBN) Plan Discussion Paper was released for comment last week. It assumes, whatever the disclaimer may say on page ii, that UTAS’ relocation from its Sandy Bay site to the Hobart CBD will proceed.

The Discussion Paper identified the Sandy Bay campus site as a redevelopment opportunity and on page 60 it states:

“In response to UTAS expressing their intention to relocate some of their educational premises from the Sandy Bay campus, the precinct is identified as a key redevelopment area, offering opportunity for well-considered staged urban renewal.

This is so disingenuous, it is laughable.

UTAS is planning to move all, or very nearly all – not “some” – of their educational premises to the Hobart CBD. This is made totally clear in the Southern Campus Transformation Preliminary Urban Design Framework flipbook, the December 2021 Sandy Bay Masterplan and [the recently obtained Deloitte] Report 2 (pages 28-29), which includes modifications to the Masterplan. As noted previously, this is absolutely necessary, from UTAS’ perspective, to pay for building works in the CBD. The move is also more than an expressed intention – UTAS is emphatic that the move is going ahead, and it is in the process of moving to rented and sub-standard accommodation in the CBD, when perfectly satisfactory buildings at Sandy Bay are going empty. This can reasonably be seen as an attempt by UTAS to present the proposed move to the CBD as a fait accompli to the Tasmanian public, before more people wake up to what a financial disaster that move would be.

Any future rezoning of the Sandy Bay campus site to allow redevelopment would be a two-edged sword.

On one hand, as I indicated in a previous post, to the extent UTAS was faced with compromise on its plans for Sandy Bay, this would impact its ‘profit’ projections. Even on UTAS’ own fanciful calculations, it stands to make only a marginal profit of $200 million over 30 years on its current relocation plan. Any compromises on UTAS’ plan for Sandy Bay could shift UTAS’ own calculations into a loss territory (and add to the major losses in my own more realistic calculations). This may, in turn, cause UTAS to reconsider its plans for relocation.

On the other hand, as I suggested in the previous section, if UTAS’ relocation and rezoning go ahead, UTAS could be expected to challenge any restrictions imposed in rezoning/development approval processes and constantly seek amendments to development approvals as part of its efforts to achieve financial sustainability.“

The canard of “aging” building stock

I developed the table below from various documents in the December 2021 Planning Scheme Amendment and Sandy Bay Masterplan and Deloitte Report 2 of March 2022.

While it is a work in progress, the table shows that, when it suits UTAS, reusing even its most “aged” buildings is no real issue (some of the buildings are even said to be in poor condition).

• In respect of the “reuse” buildings, where costs have been provided, it would of course be much cheaper to refurbish these buildings for their current educational use.

Buildings for Retention/Reuse in UTAS’ December 2021 Sandy Bay Masterplan

From page 119 of the 30 Year Greater Hobart Plan STRATEGY FOR GROWTH AND CHANGE