My submission: This document makes comment on the disposal of public land contained within CT137631, Folio 1 located at 10 Bass Highway, Parklands. This land is an integral part of the land/asset transfer by Burnie City Council to UTAS. As such it cannot be looked at in isolation. The concerns outlined below are made in the context of the broader land deal: 1. No Public Consultation: Council is disposing of this land as part of a broader property and asset transference to UTAS. Council undertook no public consultation regarding this arrangement before signing a Heads of Agreement with UTAS in March 2013. 2. West Park Strategic Plan: There exists a Burnie City Council funded West Park Strategic Plan (2008). This plan involved extensive community consultation. The results of this consultation - regarding preferred use of the land – are clear from any reading of the report. A summary of the stakeholder feedback, for example: “A strong sense of community attachment and belonging to the site... A strong preference from community members that the area be retained for use by the community...” “Precincts should be made up of sporting, entertainment, community and tourism (culture) zones...” (West Park Summary page 4). Page 5 of the West Park Summary lists the conclusions from the public forum, including: “A strong desire towards the site being retained by (ownership) the community, to be used for community leisure and cultural activities...” From the Stage 3 (final) version of the West Park Strategic Plan (p. 16): “Create Visitor Destination - Create a significant visitor focus to the site to reinforce this as a major public destination and ensure it becomes an integral part of The Burnie Waterfront.” Pages 30 – 34 summarise the Values/Objectives regarding Public and Open Space, Sport, Leisure and Recreation, Community and Cultural Activity and Commercial Use. There is nothing in these pages remotely relating to an educational establishment. It may have been reasonable for council to want to review this strategic plan after five years. Due diligence, however, would indicate that council should therefore have undertaken additional community consultation before making a decision which will change the focus of this precinct so dramatically from the wishes of the public expressed not so long ago (in strategic planning terms). Given that a consistent theme of the report is how passionate the community felt about the West Park precinct, it is especially questionable that council kept the community out of the negotiations and planning leading up to the announcement of the deal with UTAS. 3. Planning/Zoning: Based on the West Park Strategic Plan, a Planning Amendment (No 47, 4th Aug 2009, Schedule to Clause 4.10(o)) was developed for the site. It clearly states three types of use and development sectors: Sport and Recreation, Open Space and Community, Recreation and Tourism. This planning amendment became redundant when the Burnie Interim Planning Scheme was implemented in October 2013. I have outlined my concerns regarding the changes to the zoning of the West Park area as a result of the new planning scheme in my submission to council. It is therefore included in the joint report from the Cradle Coast Region which is now being reviewed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission. The key point I make is that the Community Purpose zone of the IPS is significantly different to what the West Park area was zoned as prior to the IPS. In the documentation provided by council explaining its reasons for changing the zone, council refers to ‘...use by UTAS for education purposes.’ (From the document Replacing the Burnie Planning Scheme). Therefore a council-initiated project is being used to justify the zoning decision. Under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, ‘active re-zoning’ is not permitted. Any change in zoning is constrained by a ‘translation’ from the 1989 BPS to the IPS. I perceive this to decision to be more like the former than the latter. It must also be underpinned by ‘...sound strategic planning’, of which the community have seen no evidence. The new zone has ‘senior and tertiary education’ at the top of its Local Area Objective list. Under this zoning the development application was approved without any public scrutiny because the use class could not be questioned and there were no discretionary matters. 4. Business Plan Community ROI: This land is part of an $8 million land and asset transfer to UTAS. I have attended several meetings with UTAS representatives and no verifiable data has been presented to indicate the Burnie community will receive a sufficient return on investment from this deal. To the best of my knowledge, UTAS have not provided a formal business plan to council. The West Park Community Stakeholder group have asked for such a document, but it has not been provided. I would consider it standard practice, in negotiations of this nature, that financial due diligence should have been undertaken prior to signing over such a significant landmark and prime land. Until I see evidence of this due diligence, I will hold that this is a high risk investment for our community, and handing over this piece of public land is part of that risk. 5. Impact on Makers’ Workshop: Makers’ Workshop was conceived and developed to be Burnie’s premier tourism attraction. It is now - partly – going to be an educational institution. This is hardly a conventional use of a tourism icon. If the university continues to develop around the site, there is a risk that the clear function of Makers’ Workshop will be diminished and confused. Makers’ Workshop houses our Visitor Information Centre, reflects the West Park Strategic Plan and taps into the growing focus on Tasmania as a cultural tourism destination. This shift of land use and purpose is of grave concern to many in the community. 6. Burnie – City of Makers: Burnie has a unique marketing advantage with our City of Makers branding. It perfectly encapsulates our history and serves our current status as a ‘city in transition’. That is, away from the old industries toward new and innovative economic, social and cultural models. Makers’ Workshop is the embodiment of our branding. It is the flagship of City of Makers. The changes to Makers’ Workshop and the waterfront as a tourism precinct as a result of the UTAS land deal jeopardises the integrity of our branding. Council have admitted, when questioned during Public Question Time, that they undertook no market research on the possible impact on tourism as a result of these significant changes (May 2013). Again, this demonstrates the risky nature of the deal and highlights what might be lost – in terms of tapping into growth sectors - as it proceeds. 7. Heads of Agreement: The document does not bind UTAS to any further development on the site apart from the building of the NRAS units. They have 10 years to undertake ‘significant’ development. This means that the land will effectively be locked up for that amount of time. UTAS is likely to have a $30 million decrease in commonwealth funding per year under the proposed higher education reforms (The Mercury, 5th June, 2014). It is no secret that regional campuses are likely to be impacted hardest due to these changes. UTAS have not been able to provide a guarantee that there is budget allocation for their proposed vision for West Park. At this crucial stage, where we are about to transfer another prime piece of waterfront land to them, we can only trust their ‘confidence’ in their vision. Burnie’s future development potential could suffer under an arrangement with an organisation so dependent on capricious external funding. 8. Development Application: This piece of land will only be transferred to UTAS if another condition is satisfied, that is, that UTAS obtain development approval for the use of this land. Based on a recent email exchange with the General Manager (15th August, 2014), no DA has yet been submitted to council. The public are therefore being asked to comment on, and contribute to a decision making process where we are not able to be fully informed. Whilst it is clear that UTAS will be the recipient of this land, we do not know exactly what is being proposed. 9. Devonport: Devonport City Council have just released their long term strategic vision for the CBD and waterfront, after undertaking a good deal of public consultation. It has a strong focus on public space and tourism. The council is now seeking ways to secure public and private funding to see the vision come to fruition. The West Park Strategic Plan has many alignments with what is being proposed in Devonport, especially the maximisation of the existing geography to bring people and commerce together. Burnie has a north-facing beach. A rare and valuable natural asset. We have already made significant improvements to our waterfront (eastern end) in terms of making it more people friendly. For the community to have confidence in what the university is proposing for our waterfront – including this piece of public land - more consultation and strategic planning is required. Devonport has a huge advantage over Burnie in that it is where the Spirit of Tasmania docks. If they achieve their long overdue improvements to their cityscape, Burnie is at risk of losing significant visitor traffic. Especially now that Makers’ Workshop is not the stand-alone tourism icon it was designed to be. 10. Public Land Disposal Process: I question the sequence of events by which this Public Land disposal is being undertaken. It is a primary part of the land deal with UTAS as outlined in the Heads of Agreement. The Heads of Agreement is unambiguous in outlining its intention to dispose of this portion of Public Land. Why, therefore, was the Public Land disposal process not undertaken prior to the Heads of Agreement being signed? This disposal is the only opportunity the public have had to formally comment on the deal with UTAS. It is occurring almost eighteen months after the initial HoA was signed. It is happening now, as the building of the NRAS units – i.e. the first step in fulfilling the conditions of the HoA - is already underway. How council have chosen to go about this disposal is another example of the perceived lack of transparency surrounding this deal and a questionable interpretation of the section 178 of the LGA.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 04:11:20 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015