David Bartlett: Our waterfront

Speech by Premier David Bartlett, Friday 18 July 2008

History will not thank us if all that we deliver is another building like the Grand Chancellor building, or development projects like the failed Oceanport idea, which was thankfully never built. Author Bill Bryson once stated that he thought the ugliest buildings in the world were in post-war Dresden – until he came to Hobart and saw the Grand Chancellor building. In my view, the Hobart Waterfront is far too precious to turn into some kind of jumbled Darling Harbour.

A NEW CONVERSATION

I’ve come here this morning because I want to start a new conversation about the future of the Hobart Waterfront.

My starting point in this conversation is that the waterfront belongs to everybody – to all Tasmanians.

Like many of you here this morning, I’ve called Hobart home for most of my life.

I’ve grown up wandering around this place – watching its changes – and I can see its untapped potential.

Anything we do here must have broad community support.

It must be open and characterised by a genuine debate of ideas.

No one person has all the answers for the waterfront, and that includes me.

We need to find the answers together.

I accept that we need to work harder to involve the community in what goes on here.

My mind is open and so is my door.

I want people to be able to share their ideas with Government.

In that vein, I’d also like to acknowledge the work of my Parliamentary Secretary Lisa Singh, who is here this morning, for the survey she conducted to gauge people’s views on the Princes Wharf No 1 Shed.

The survey, with nearly 3000 responses, demonstrated clearly how strongly people are attached to what happens on the Hobart Waterfront.

It has strengthened my resolve to give the community a greater chance to be heard as this debate moves forward.

PREMIER’S VISION

I think most of us would agree the Hobart waterfront could and should play a bigger role in the life of our community.

It could be so much more than it is.

I see this as Tasmania’s unique meeting place.

Where the Old Tasmania meets the New Tasmania.

The past meets the future where the water meets the land.

For thousands of years, Tasmanian Aborigines used this shoreline to meet and to gather food.

It is where sandstone warehouses like the Bond Store at the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, meet the modern apartments of the silos.

A working port meeting the art and entertainment of Salamanca Place, and Australia’s oldest continually operating theatre, the Theatre Royal.

The future demands of us that we realise the full potential of this place.

Sullivans Cove must continue to be a connecting point for the 21st Century, as it has been for centuries gone by.

It must continue to be our cultural and commercial window to the world.
It should be a place where friends meet to relax and enjoy themselves.
It should be a place where families spend time together and feel safe.
It should be a bustling commercial port – an economic powerhouse.
It should be a place of entertainment, a public space where tourism, arts and innovation combine.
It should be a place where the creative economy thrives alongside the tradition of the maritime sector.

I want to see a culture of innovation, science, technology and creativity fostered in this historic quarter.

It should be welcoming to pedestrians and cyclists alike.

The whole waterfront should be a place where Tasmania is connected to the world as a high-tech, Wi-Fi enabled hot-spot of communications technology.

We already have a concentration of Tasmania’s great cultural institutions here – the TSO, TMAG, Theatre Royal, Salamanca Arts Centre, the University of Tasmania Art School, and the Conservatorium of Music.

There are opportunities to link places like the State Library, the Allport, the Tasmaniana Collection and even the Transport Museum more closely to these institutions on the waterfront.

I see these cultural drawcards serving as the backbone around which we can spawn a new waterfront full of creativity in business, art and culture.

Essentially, I want a waterfront that reflects a Tasmania that is clever, kind and connected.

It can be a place where old meets new in a functional, respectful way.

Sullivans Cove is first and foremost a place for Tasmanians to enjoy, respect and be a part of.

Only if Tasmanians love it and embrace it, will it have an authentic feel and then visitors will love it too.

The task ahead is to incorporate new development that complements the value of what has come before.

We have the chance now to develop something that builds on this uniquely Tasmanian location.

This is an exciting time.

But that excitement must be balanced with a sense of responsibility.

We need to consider how history will judge the decisions we make now.

History will not thank us if all that we deliver is another building like the Grand Chancellor building, or development projects like the failed Oceanport idea, which was thankfully never built.

Author Bill Bryson once stated that he thought the ugliest buildings in the world were in post-war Dresden – until he came to Hobart and saw the Grand Chancellor building.

In my view, the Hobart Waterfront is far too precious to turn into some kind of jumbled Darling Harbour.

PLANNING PROCESS

A friend of mine says that planning codes shouldn’t just be dumbed-down referencing of existing buildings.

I am strongly of the view that neither kitsch copies nor dumb references are going to be satisfying for the future of Sullivans Cove.

This morning, I want to outline mechanisms that I think we need to improve to make sure that doesn’t happen.

I believe the current model that controls planning, development and communication issues is confusing and unwieldy.

Each site proposed for redevelopment seems to have its own process which doesn’t relate to the process for neighbouring sites.

No wonder people struggle to follow what’s happening.

We cannot continue with the idea that eight or more projects can be run in parallel silos.

Even when the bodies charged with progressing development proposals adhere strictly to their requirements, the community is left unclear.

It’s cumbersome and clunky and I propose to improve it.

There is a need for more standardisation in the process under which all waterfront developments are progressed, particularly in standardisation around community and stakeholder consultation.

We need to see the development of Sullivans Cove as a holistic project, and this needs to be a vision that is clearly communicated to the public and developers alike.

As the wider frame within which all the pieces of the puzzle must fit together in a complementary way.

It’s no good having a plan for Princes Wharf No.1 if it bears no relation to what’s happening at the Brooke Street Pier, or at Princes Wharf No. 2.

The current ad-hoc range of processes serve as a barrier to public involvement.

I want to find a new model that will make it easier for the community to keep up with the progress of waterfront development proposals.

A model that has clear points of public consultation built-in.

I don’t want to have another Brooke Street situation where experts are making decisions, based on an open process, and the community is not informed about who has been selected to go forward to the next stage, or why they have been selected.

I think that has created unnecessary confusion and fear about what developments might look like.

It is vital that both the Government and potential developers put community consultation at the centre of what we do.

I encourage all developers with bold ideas for the waterfront to take that same approach.

Take the Tasmanian people into your confidence – because this asset belongs to them.

I say to potential developers – I want you to be prepared to share, detail and discuss your plans with the Tasmanian people.

The Government can only work in supporting you if you are doing your part in engaging with stakeholders.

THE WAY FORWARD

Which brings me to the current debate about the proposed redevelopment of Brooke Street Pier – which is a microcosm of a broader debate about the waterfront.

I know that the possibilities for Brooke Street have already ruffled feathers.

(By the way, I think it’s an exciting proposal which deserves the opportunity it will get to go through the full planning process).

But in terms of communication about developments – we need to do better and we will do better.

It doesn’t matter if you have the best processes in the world – if people don’t understand them or don’t feel part of them, then they aren’t working.

I have said that as Premier I will take personal responsibility for progressing the mechanisms for development, planning and communication on the waterfront.

I don’t expect that suddenly everybody that has anything to do with the waterfront will simply agree on everything.

We have to remember that this is a place that invites disparate views.

We need to be realistic about that.

History shows us that worthwhile decisions can still have their detractors.

For instance, in the 1970s Premier Bill Neilson was faced with demands to demolish the old Salamanca warehouses to open up the waterfront.

Instead, he bequeathed those seven warehouses to the arts community, which also sparked the start of the Salamanca Market.

Today, I think we can all see that Premier Neilson was a visionary.

We need to be able to weigh up the disparate voices of today and make similarly worthy decisions for tomorrow.

It’s a debate that will contain elements of self-interest on the part of developers and commentators alike.

There is no guarantee that what we will find is consensus.

There are people who would like us to do nothing at all on the waterfront.

Let me be quite clear – I am not one of those people.

What I am saying is that whatever does happen here needs to be clear, transparent, and well communicated.

This is not a criticism of the proposal put forward by Hunter Developments.

On the contrary, as I’ve said, I think the concept is exciting, innovative and an important part of the wider debate about ideas for the waterfront.

I am targeting our processes within Government and its agencies and authorities.

For example, I want to see story-boards erected at each development site so the community understand what’s proposed, how it might look and where they can go to get further information.

When you are out with your family – buying a Sunday ice-cream with the kids – I want you to be able to wander around Sullivans Cove and see from these signs exactly what’s going on.

What is proposed, what stages a development is at, what it may look like and where you can go to have input into it.

I want that information and associated plans to be publicly available – on the internet, and in the State Library and other key buildings, so all Tasmanians can easily access them.
And I want to see developers engaged to the same extent in public communication.

Part of putting your hand up as a developer on the Hobart waterfront will involve being committed to sharing your proposals with the Tasmanian public.

ACTION

I’m determined that the Government will provide leadership, both in terms of how we communicate, and the structures we establish.

As I’ve alluded to – development and planning issues are confused in the current structures.

Good planning means making sure that successful developers comply with planning regulations that are clear and easily understood.

Good development means attracting proposals that fit well within our overarching vision for the waterfront.

Today I announce that I will ask the Secretaries of the Departments of Premier and Cabinet, Treasury and Planning to report back to me on improving the structures that deal with development, consultation and planning processes around the waterfront.

We need a way forward to un-pick the mixing of development agendas with planning issues.

We need to provide a frame of reference in which we can look at ideas before they go in to the formal planning approval stage.

This cannot and will not be an open-ended internal discussion or long-winded review.

I want formal feedback from the three secretaries within six weeks, and I want it to provide advice on the following points:
1. The most appropriate model for progressing development on the waterfront;
2. Separation of planning, urban design and development functions;
3. To consider the most appropriate role for the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority and the State Architect;
4. Create a template for progressing development that is clearly understood by developers and the public;
5. Ensure greater transparency and community confidence in processes and outcomes; and
6. Provide greater opportunity for community input at all stages of the development process.

My view is that it’s not practical or desirable for the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority to be both a developer and a planner.

A development-focused agency needs to be in control of progressing development proposals.

A planning authority needs to be clearly distinct from a development agency.

I have kept the planning portfolio as Premier because I believe that good planning leads to good developments.

The planning system should be an enabler of good development, not a series of road blocks to it.

What we need – dare I say it – is a masterplan – an overarching vision for how this all needs to fit together.

To me, good planning principles need to be informed by an overarching vision which respects the past and sets the boundaries for future development.

We need this masterplan to guide development based on established heritage and conservation values.

We can’t plan for the future without properly taking into account the past.

But we also need to understand future demands, needs and amenities.

We need an overarching sense of how many hotel beds Hobart needs, for example – or whether we need a convention centre or a concert space or a business hub – and whether the waterfront is the right place for them?

Tourism industry research clearly shows that we do need more hotel beds – whereas others in our community would assert that we already have more than enough.

Only a master plan can bring that data and evidence together to tell us what we need for the future.

That is why I believe we need to produce a comprehensive masterplan for the entirety of Sullivans Cove.

This will help inform us about issues such as the mix of accommodation, housing, cafes and restaurants appropriate for the waterfront.

The Sullivans Cove Masterplan will need to interrelate with the plans across the Cove that have already been developed, or are in development.

I can advise you today that the Government will be releasing masterplans for the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, and the new Royal Hobart Hospital in the coming weeks.

I also want to extend an olive branch to the Hobart City Council on planning issues.

It is vital that what we build on our waterfront matches with the broader needs of Hobart City – and for that I believe we need greater dialogue with the Council.

I regret that the Council has opted against taking its seat on the Waterfront Authority board up to now, but I understand what led to that decision.

The local Government of our city has a legitimate interest in the Hobart waterfront, and I want to work with them.

I want to extend a fresh invitation to the Council to become involved in this process in a meaningful way – and I will be sitting down with Lord Mayor Rob Valentine in coming weeks to start this happening.

And I will be asking the three secretaries to report back to me on how that may best happen.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion – it’s time for new energy on our waterfront.

Its time to bring the community with us.

As I’ve set out this morning, we need to make clear the distinctions between development and planning.

We need to create an overarching template to make sure individual projects reflect and complement a greater vision for the whole of Sullivans Cove.

We need to communicate better with each other, and with the public.

We must do these things, because we need the benefits that good developments bring.

We must encourage strong private sector investment so that Hobart’s waterfront can realise its full potential – and I make no apology for that.

Good planning and good communication will not act as a road block, but will instead enhance the possibilities for attracting capital to this area.

It is in everyone’s interest to lift the waterfront debate – to focus on the positives of what can be achieved.

Certainty for developers.
Consultation for stakeholders.
Confidence for the Tasmanian people.

This is simply too good an opportunity to waste.