Hobart will reap ‘significant’ economic benefits from stadium, report says

Source : ABC NEWS

A new economic report commissioned by the Hobart City Council has found the proposed Macquarie Point stadium would deliver more than $140 million in economic impact to Hobart per year during the construction phase, and $178 million per year when operational.

The economic analysis, undertaken by AEC Group, was commissioned by the council as part of its submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC). 

It was in response to the TPC’s draft assessment of the stadium project, and its focus was the economic impact of the stadium on the Hobart area specifically.

The AEC report modelled “significant economic impacts” for Hobart during the construction phase of the project totalling $143 million per year, as well as a $65.4 million growth in the city’s gross regional product, a $44.7 million rise in “incomes” and 385 full-time equivalent jobs.

The council shared the TPC’s concerns about the stadium’s potential impact on the state budget and the state’s ability to finance the project.

According to AEC Group, the benefits for Hobart were more substantial during the stadium’s operational phase and become “steady” by 2032.

It modelled a $178.9 million annual boost to the local economy, an $87.2 million rise in gross regional product, a $62.8 million lift in incomes and 813 full-time equivalent jobs.

But the AEC Group’s report was sought due to what the council described as “a missed opportunity” by stadium developers the Macquarie Point Development Corporation to understand the economic impacts on the “chosen location of the project”.

The council noted that “through its own economic modelling, significant local economy benefits that have not been adequately considered by the [TPC] panel in both the construction and operational phases of the project”.

“Given the project will be located within the Hobart LGA and adjacent to Hobart’s CBD, council engaged AEC Group to undertake additional economic analysis to inform its decision-making as well as to highlight the potential economic, social and cultural implications for Hobart specifically,” the submission reads.

Operational phase activity included:

• Operating activity of the stadium itself
• Activity associated with organising and hosting events at the stadium
• Activity supported more broadly in Hobart on event days outside the stadium, before and after an event
• Induced non-event day visitation and associated visitor expenditure

The modelling found that “induced non-event day visitation and associated visitor expenditure” would create the greatest benefit to the city, at a total of $66.9 million per year, supporting 315 full-time jobs outside the venue.

The submission also noted that “the anticipated uplift in urban renewal is expected to support additional economic activity in the Hobart CBD and enhance the livability and attractiveness of the city”.

Council concerns

The council agreed with large parts of the TPC’s draft assessment of the stadium, including the broad scope under which the stadium project was being assessed.

The MPDC has argued that the planning commission has unfairly included infrastructure such as the proposed Northern Access Road and Collins Street pedestrian bridge in its assessment.

The council agreed that the pedestrian bridge should be assessed — and was crucial to the operation of the stadium — while adding the bridge should be progressed “regardless of whether a stadium forms part of that precinct”.

It also called on MPDC and TasPorts to review the eastern boundary of the stadium precinct as a “priority” due to pedestrian circulation concerns.

It held “reservations” about the potential dismantling and relocation of the heritage-listed Goods Shed, and agreed with the TPC that the size of the stadium would be “disproportionate” to Hobart’s small scale and established built form.

On parking, the council said its multistorey car parks would have a “significant amount of spare capacity” available to service potential weekend, public holiday and weekday evening events, but operating hours would likely need to be extended, resulting in extra fees.

The council also flagged charging a fee for special event parking on the grassed surrounds of the Hobart Cenotaph.

Council planners also largely concurred with the TPC’s concerns around the dispersal of large crowds after stadium events, but that those concerns could be “mitigated though careful planning with key stakeholders”.

The submission will be tabled at Monday night’s Hobart City Council meeting, with a recommendation that it be endorsed by councillors.

Council seeks AFL meeting

The council is making its representation to the planning committee as part of the submissions phase of the Project of State Significance process under which the stadium is being assessed.

But it could be moot, with the government declaring it will seek to sidestep the process and table special enabling legislation next month in a bid to fast-track the stadium’s approval.

The enabling legislation will still need to be passed by both houses of the parliament, but several key upper house independents have already indicated they will not vote it through.

Last Thursday, Acting Hobart Lord Mayor Zelinda Sherlock wrote to AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon.

“I am writing to request a meeting with you to discuss some critical issues that have arisen in the planning process for the Macquarie Point Stadium — a project that the Tasmanian Government is contractually required to deliver for the state to enter the AFL competition,” she wrote.

“Given the importance of this project to our city, we are eager to engage in a productive discussion with the AFL.”

On the same day, a Greens-sponsored petition by anti-stadium advocate Janice Overett was launched.

It calls on petitioners to “support completion of the Project of State Significance process”, which the stadium is being assessed under, and for “the Rockliff government to renegotiate the terms with the AFL”.

It also wants people to reject “the improper attempt [by the government] to discredit independent evidence and bypass due process through special enabling legislation”.

As of Thursday night it had amassed more than 1,500 signatures.

Loading…