The government agency responsible for the proposed Hobart stadium project has stated that a strongly worded draft report from the Planning Commission regarding the project should be given "limited, if any, weight." The agency has sought and obtained legal advice on the matter, indicating the seriousness with which they are treating the report's findings.
Read Also...:
In Pictures: Sporting photos of the week
04-09, 2025
Players Championship 11: Luke Littler and Michael van Gerwen suffer surprise first-round defeats
04-09, 2025
'Tough to take' - Scotland's Caroline Weir & Rachel McLauchlan lament 6-1 collapse in Germany
04-09, 2025
Celebre d'Allen: Grand National horse dies after collapse at Aintree
04-09, 2025The draft report, released on Monday as part of the stadium project's State Significance Assessment process, declared the stadium "overly assertive," would jeopardize the state's credit rating, and would only return 53 cents in benefit for every public dollar spent. The agency's legal representatives have reportedly written to the Tasmanian Planning Commission, alleging the report contains "legal errors" and suffers from flawed methodology and analysis, highlighting the depth of their concerns.
The proponent of the stadium project, Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), is a statutory government authority. The corporation has indicated that the letter from MinterEllison lawyers is the first of three submissions it plans to make in the next stage of the project assessment process, during which stakeholders will be invited to provide feedback, ensuring a thorough review.
The letter outlines MPDC's concerns about the draft report, stating that it is "contentious, unbalanced, and relies on untested material." It argues that the draft report has failed to properly assess the stadium project in accordance with the State Policies and Projects Act, and that the scope of the project has been unreasonably extended beyond its defined boundaries, raising questions about the report's validity.
The letter also objects to the adoption of "significant portions" of the "Gruen report," which MPDC argues contains "untested and incorrect assumptions." This challenges the foundation upon which the draft report's conclusions are based, suggesting a need for further scrutiny of the data and analysis used.
