Following is a copy of my submission to the City of Hobart on the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan Discussion Paper. This includes an attachment on the age and condition of buildings on the Sandy Bay campus (Attachment A).
MY SUBMISSION
24 January 2024
Strategic Planning
City of Hobart
By email: [email protected]
To whom it may concern
Submission on the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay (MNSB) Neighbourhood Discussion Paper
Please read and consider my blog posts UTAS works its baleful influence on the Mt Nelson & Sandy Bay Neighbourhood Plan of 27 November 2023, and The magic 7,850 number of 13 December 2023, as part of this submission.
These blog posts can be found at: https://theutaspapers.com/utas-works-its-baleful-influence-on-the-mt-nelson-sandy-bay-neighbourhood-plan/ and https://theutaspapers.com/the-magic-7850-number/ respectively.
My blog posts covered the following matters:
- The supposed 7,850 “expected” increase in the resident MNSB population by 2042.
- The supposed relocation of just “some educational premises” by UTAS to the CBD.
- The canard of aging building stock on the UTAS campus.
- Transport realities (issues).
- The issue of bias in the Discussion Paper.
Given the content of my blog posts, and the likelihood that you will have received a number of other submissions relating to matters I raised in these, I will keep my comments here to a minimum.
The 7,850 figure and the issue of bias
I note that I submitted a Right to Information (RTI) application to the City of Hobart on 21 November 2023 seeking, in short, the derivation of the 7,850 figure cited above. After I raised the lack of response with the acting CEO of the City of Hobart, I received a letter on this matter from Jen Lawley and Neil Noye on 12 December 2023. I have, since, separately obtained a copy of the paper by .id Consulting referred to in that letter. However neither of these documents shed real light on the derivation of the 7,850 figure.
When I persisted in seeking processing of my RTI application, I received a pro forma response on 22 December 2023 stating, among other things:
“We refer to your application(s) for assessed disclosure made under terms of the Right to Information Act 2009 (Tas) with the City of Hobart.
The City has been experiencing a high demand for access to information which has caused a delay in attending to your application. We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.
We note that with the upcoming holiday season there will be no resources available to assess your application until the week commencing 15 January 2024.”
The derivation of the 7,850 figure is the most important issue raised by the Discussion Paper and to be told that processing of my RTI application would, at best, begin nearly two months after its lodgement – two weeks after the survey on the Discussion Paper closed and a mere nine days before submissions were due on the Discussion Paper – is highly unsatisfactory.
The public has been deprived of the opportunity to consider information that may well be vital in considering the validity of the Discussion Paper. I am therefore considering options for pursuing this issue further, including under section 46 of the Right to Information Act 2009.
As it is, I hold to the view expressed in both my blog posts:
“The only reasonable conclusion from this [the lack of detail on where the 7,850 figure came from] 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.”
In this regard, the sequence of events relating to UTAS’ Sandy Bay rezoning application and masterplan (the application), which was lodged with the City of Hobart on 6 December 2021 is noteworthy. After pressure from “students, staff and the community”, UTAS paused the application in July 2022 (see: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-14/utas-sandy-bay-campus-redevelopment-on-hold-new-consultation/101237052). When it became clear that UTAS was about to lose the 2022 Elector Poll regarding its proposed relocation to the Hobart CBD, UTAS withdrew the application altogether on about 29 October 2022 (see: https://theutaspapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Elector-Poll-29-October-2022.jpg). Shortly after, Vice-Chancellor (VC) Rufus Black emerged as a champion of the neighbourhood planning process. In particular, in a radio interview with the ABC’s Leon Compton on 6 March 2023, VC Black urged people to become involved in the Sandy Bay neighbourhood plan.
A cynic, or perhaps even just someone who has observed VC Black closely, might conclude that he was confident of his/UTAS’ ability to manipulate the MNSB neighbourhood plan process to achieve UTAS’ relocation objective – going through the ‘back door’ rather than the ‘front’.
If this is so, I sincerely hope that the City of Hobart has not been caught up in VC Black’s plans.
The relocation of just “some educational premises” by UTAS to the CBD
Following an adverse decision by the Ombudsman against UTAS in respect of one of my RTI applications, I received a large amount of material from UTAS in November and December 2023. These documents confirmed that even on own its flawed calculations UTAS simply cannot afford the building program it set out for the Hobart CBD in 2022 unless it can fully develop the Sandy Bay campus site – and relocate all educational premises – as envisaged in its December 2021 Sandy Bay rezoning application and masterplan.
The canard of aging building stock on the UTAS campus
Further to my comments on this issue in my blog post of 27 November 2023, I am attaching a table largely based on the material I received from UTAS in November and December 2023 under RTI (Attachment A).
This table emphatically shows that the age of building stock is not an issue. UTAS has decided to retain or repurpose most of its major older buildings, including some UTAS has itself rated as in poor condition. Conversely it plans to demolish newer buildings in good condition, such as the Centenary and Pharmacy Buildings. It is clear from this that refurbishment of most, if not all, of the building stock on the Sandy Bay campus is a real option – an option that would be both readily affordable and environmentally beneficial.
A final point
I indicated above that even on its own flawed calculations, UTAS would have to fully redevelop the Sandy Bay campus site to be able to afford to relocate to the Hobart CBD. On my more robust calculations, UTAS’ redevelopment of Sandy Bay would not pay for itself, let alone UTAS’ Hobart CBD building program. (I will shortly publish a detailed blog post on this matter).
If UTAS persists with relocation to the Hobart CBD, it will suffer serious damage as an institution. This could take a number of forms, but certain among them is that UTAS would not be able to maintain a major physical presence in the Hobart CBD and that students and staff would increasingly be forced to work on-line (a model increasingly favoured by UTAS irrespective of how matters develop), and would increasingly work from home.
It would therefore be foolish to ‘bank’ on UTAS’ relocation to the Hobart CBD to regenerate the city. Ultimately the CBD would be further hollowed out with unused spaces and a decrease in foot traffic. At the same time, the uniquely beautiful campus site at Sandy Bay (which is UTAS’ major competitive advantage) would be lost forever, while Mt Nelson and Sandy Bay would, among other things, suffer disastrous traffic impacts and major environmental damage.
Thank you for your attention to this submission.
Yours sincerely
SIGNATURE
Robert Hogan
By email: [email protected]