Ms ROSOL – Minister, The goods shed is now heritage listed and Heritage Tasmania’s works manual unequivocally states that relocating a significant structure will, in most circumstances, be unacceptable. Location and setting context are an important part of a cultural heritage listing and moving the goods shed to make way for a stadium is, according to its nominator, unacceptable. Minister, we’ve learnt that moving the goods shed is unfunded and an option is to pull it down, store it, re‑erect it some time in the future, jammed in under the stadium and Cenotaph hill.
Minister, there are funds in the Budget for a variety of heritage‑related outputs including supporting Tasmania’s built heritage, but can you rule out using any heritage‑related funding in the Budget to move the goods shed or will it be all funded by Macquarie Point Development Corporation?
Ms OGILVIE – I do think we have some updated information on this and – are you able to assist me?
Ms FORD – The Budget that funds Heritage Tasmania and the activities of the Tasmanian Heritage Council are not designed for anything to do with what would be happening at Macquarie Point other than the funding of the work of the team in my works team to assess the submission and inform the Heritage Council’s submission to the Tasmanian Planning Commission’s integrated impact assessment of the proposal. So, I think your question seems to be saying: is some of the money going to be used? The answer is no.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you. What do you think of relocating the historic heritage‑listed building to make way for a structure that’s got no heritage values and will have further heritage impacts, including on the war memorial, the Cenotaph? What are your thoughts on that?
Ms OGILVIE – The protection of Tasmanian heritage is a very important thing and we balance that with the needs of a growing community and a growing sector.
The work I know that the Macquarie Point Development Corporation has been doing, particularly in relation to heritage assessments – and specifically I’m thinking about Aboriginal cultural heritage and other overlays – I think that has been quite well researched and well done. In relation, as we’ve said, to the costs of dealing with cultural heritage issues on site, that is one for the Macquarie Point Development Corporation and Department of State Growth.
I think Mel was also going to add a little bit more information about the process and then I will top and tail that on the way back.
Ms FORD – The process that we’ve been made aware of from the Tasmanian Planning Commission is:
The project of state significance process is outside of the Historical Cultural Heritage Act and the Tasmanian Heritage Council will not be making a statutory determination under that process. The Tasmanian Planning Commission has advised that the Macquarie Point stadium assessment process will be a 12‑month process from the date of acceptance of the applicant’s submission.
We’ve been advised that has happened as of today:
As an agency with a relevant interest, the Tasmanian Heritage Council will have the opportunity for input at several stages, the first of them being a high level response within 28 days of notification of acceptance of the applicant’s submission.
Which is now, today.
The second stage will be where the planning commission’s assessment panel will engage with technical experts in heritage matters to inform its draft integrated assessment report. And that, in my team, will be our Heritage Tasmania works team and they have that necessary technical expertise.
The third stage will be an invitation for public submissions in response to the Planning Commission assessment panel’s draft integrated impact assessment report, and we have been advised that the planning commission will also conduct hearings as part of that process.
So, that’s the process as we understand it.
Ms OGILVIE – You did ask what my personal view was and I’m happy to share some thoughts with you. As I move around the nation and look at this issue that every country has in relation to built heritage and how we protect it and how we maintain it – falling-in roofs, very expensive.
Tasmania being a heritage state, I’m more and more drawn to what I think is bit of a global movement around activation of heritage sites. We’re doing a huge amount of work on this to provide opportunities for those who own heritage buildings or care about heritage buildings to do more to derive commercial revenue from them – for example, Woolmers – to be able to buy a ticket and go in and have a look at it, those sorts of things.
Many different good ideas are around. In relation to the goods shed, I think about activation and think about ways of preserving cultural heritage. Getting that balance right is very important and I know that the Tasmanian Heritage Council has not precluded it being moved as part of its perspective on appropriate secure stewardship of that building. I just want to be in the centre with this. Let’s see what the proposal becomes. Let’s see what the Macquarie Point corporation actually proposes to do. I certainly have a keen eye on it.
