Tasmania’s planning body has slammed the proposed AFL stadium at Macquarie Point, saying that the stadium would be a poor investment and would have unacceptable impacts on Hobart’s landscape.

The Tasmanian Planning Commission has released its final recommendation report in respect the proposed multi-purpose stadium at Macquarie Point.

Currently planned to open ahead of the 2029 AFL season, the Macquarie Point Stadium aims to be a landmark destination and drawcard for Hobart and Tasmania.

Should it proceed, the stadium will serve as the home ground for Tasmania’s new AFL team (the Tasmanian Devils), which is expected to enter the AFL in 2028.

The stadium will also host cricket, rugby, soccer, concerts, festivals, conferences and business events and functions and hospitality.

Once built, the stadium will have a capacity of 23,000 seats (with standing room for an additional 1,500 patrons) for major sporting events and will have a 31,500-patron capacity for major conference events.

Architecturally, its defining feature will be a190-meter fixed dome roof which bridges over the stadium.

Engineered to incorporate locally grown and locally sourced timber along with translucent roof cladding, the proposed structure is believed to be the largest fixed roof over a natural grass oval anywhere in the world.

The project is being funded by the Tasmanian and Federal Governments, with the AFL also chipping in $15 million.

As things stand, the AFL has made it clear that construction of the stadium is a condition of Tasmania being granted a licence to have an AFL team.

The AFL considers that only a new stadium would offer the capacity and facilities that would provide the foundation for a team which is able to be truly competitive at the elite level.

However, the stadium has generated local concerns over its cost and impact upon the surrounding landscape.

Politically, the stadium has the support of both of Tasmania’s major parties.

However, support from at least some upper house cross benchers will be needed if the government is to pass enabling legislation to allow the project to be approved by the state’s parliament.

The legislation will enable the stadium to be approved by direct vote in parliament rather than going through the regular assessment process of a Project of State Significance.

This is considered necessary in order for the stadium to be constructed in time to meet the AFL’s timeline for establishing the new team.

Poor investment, too big for site

In a scathing assessment, the Planning Commission concluded that the proposed stadium represented a poor investment and would be too big for its surroundings.

From an investment viewpoint, the Commission found that the project had ratio of benefits to costs of just 0.45 to 1.

This means that for every dollar invested, the project would deliver only 45 cents in social and economic benefits.

The Commission says that benefits from the stadium are likely to be relatively small compared with the cost involved.

In terms of cost, the report estimated the overall capital expenditure of the stadium at $1.199 billion.

This includes the core stadium as well as site works, external street works, the car park and event busses.

Taking out $240 million which has been allocated by the Commonwealth and $15 million which has been promised by the AFL, this leaves the state footing a bill of $944 million.

Beyond its cost benefit analysis, the Commission says that the stadium is too big for the site on which it would sit.

Because of its size, scale and form, the stadium will be dominant within the landscape.

It will therefore diminish the significance of the Domain headland as a frame of Sullivan’s Cove and will stand as an intrusive element in the present urban form which surrounds the cove.

According to the Commission, the size, shape and location of the site is not well suited a building such as the proposed stadium. It says that the stadium would stand as a ‘singular, large, bulky monolith’ that would overwhelm surrounding buildings and the natural setting.

Furthermore, given the size of the stadium and constraints of the site, the Commission says that it is unlikely that areas which are not consumed by the stadium will be able to be activated as these will be small, unlikely to support viable retail businesses and unattractive to visitors other than to access stadium events.

Moreover, the panel says that the project would deliver unacceptable adverse impacts in terms of cultural heritage and community value.

In particular, the proposed stadium would irreparably damage historic and cultural heritage such as the Cenotaph (Hobart’s shrine of remembrance), the Engineers building and heritage listed buildings in Hunter Street.

In addition, the project would adversely affect the general character and experience of Sullivan’s Cove.

This is important as the Cove’s prevailing 19^th century historical character is a large part of the area’s attractiveness and is therefore a fundamental part of Hobart’s spatial character and identity along with Tasmania’s overall brand.

“The fundamental problem is the size, location and geographical features of the site, in its highly valued context, do not support the disproportionately large, monolithic building proposed,” the report suggested.

“It is a building which is incongruent with the valued characteristics of its spatial context, completely at odds with the long-established planning principles guiding and informing development, and with the land and urban fabric surrounding the site and the heritage values associated with nearby places.

“Proceeding with the Project will give rise to irrevocable and unacceptable adverse impacts on Hobart’s spatial and landscape character, urban form and historic cultural heritage.

“In addition, the Project represents a significant net cost and will diminish the economic welfare of Tasmanians as a whole, and it offers almost no scope for the site to become a vibrant active place that is attractive to visit outside of major event mode.

“In very simple terms, the stadium is too big for the site and the benefits it will bring are significantly outweighed by the disbenefits it creates”

Premier backs stadium

The Commission’s report is not binding and Tasmania’s Parliament may still back the stadium despite the damning assessment.

However, it is possible that the report may sway those crossbenchers who are undecided toward opposing the stadium.

In a statement, Tasmanian Premier Jeremy Rockliff urged parliamentarians to vote for the stadium in spite of the report.

Whilst thanking the Commission for its work, Rockliff said that the report significantly underestimates the benefits which the stadium will deliver for the state.

“Stadiums are complex, and this is the reason why across the nation special laws are used to approve them, instead of the traditional planning scheme,” Rockliff said.

“The Commission has done its job, and I thank them.

“At the beginning of this process, it was known that elected Members of Parliament would have the final vote on the Project.

“It is now time for MPs to have their say.”

“As a growing State, reaching for aspiration and opportunity for young people, we must pursue ambitious projects like that at Macquarie Point.

“It will create jobs, boost our tourism and hospitality sector, secure world-class entertainment and keep our economy strong.

“It is time to get on with the job.”

Enjoying Sourceable articles? Subscribe for Free and receive daily updates of all articles which are published on our site

Want to grow your sales, reach more new clients and expand your client base across Australia’s design and construction sector?

Advertise on Sourceable and have your business seen by the thousands of architects, engineers, builders/construction contractors, subcontractors/trade contractors, property developers and building industry suppliers who read our stories across the civil, commercial and residential construction sector