The case for 10 Murray

Concerns re: Parliament Square Development

We are writing to you to bring to your attention our concerns regarding the Parliament Square Development.

We trust that as elected members of Parliament there may be an opportunity to question aspects of this important development as part of the parliamentary process. This is especially important as the development in question is a result of a government public tender for a site that until recently has always been publicly owned and is highly significant to the people of Tasmania.

Critical issues surrounding this development include:

1. Environmental Irresponsibility

The new proposal requires the demolition of several buildings which have historic and cultural value that could instead be adaptively re-used. We believe the demolition of 10 Murray St, in particular, is environmentally and economically wasteful.

10 Murray St is structurally sound and can be upgraded relatively easily to achieve the energy efficiency standards required by Government.

With the current focus on environmental responsibility the demolition of this building should be reconsidered, especially as the demolition results in a waste of embodied energy yet only results in a small increase in the overall leasable floor area in the new office building.

In contrast, the Victorian Government promote in their Environmentally Sustainable Action Statement 2006 the refurbishment of the Treasury Reserve Precinct (including1 Macarthur St and 55 St Andrews Place) as examples of best practice in this regard. Although of different scale, 55 St Andrews Place has significant similarities to 10 Murray St and was upgraded to a 4 Green Star rating on a modest budget.

When the costs of the new building ($45.5M construction budget and $25M proposed Government funded fit-out budget) and the $8M cost of demolishing 10 Murray St are taken into account we believe a better outcome can be achieved in the existing building.

This concern was also expressed by Professor Rob Adams, member of the Tasmanian Climate Action Council and Director of City Design and Urban Environment, Melbourne City Council, in the Mercury newspaper when he said the Governments CBD office block was a prime catalyst to stimulate the change,If you look at 10 Murray street you see that there is an opportunity for the Government to lead the change towards a sustainable and liveable citythere was an opportunity to take a building that is in good condition and refurbish it into a six star, environmentally friendly buildingIf the Government did that to one of its buildings it would send a great message to the community. It would also be a heck of a lot cheaper than knocking down and starting again.The Mercury September 27 2009.

To date there has not been an assessment of the environmental impact of demolition or loss of embodied energy of the existing building.

2. Economic Cost

We understand that the lease agreement for the new building is yet to be finalised. Due to the building’s location – directly connected to and overlooking Parliament House – an ongoing, ad infinitum tenancy by the government will be essential.

There are concerns over the cost and terms of the lease given that the initial capital costs and current local market rates for new 5 star office tenancies make these projects largely unfeasible in the current Tasmanian market.

The project has already been substantially subsidised with what was arguably a below market-value sale price yet there is little or no information available as to the economic benefit of the project to the Tasmanian people. We are not aware if a Cost/Benefit analysis has even been done.

While we support the Government in acquiring 5 star office space we believe this could be achieved more economically by retrofitting 10 Murray St.

3. Security Concerns

As far as we are aware, no other Parliament in Australia has privatised parliamentary land or offices. With the anticipation that the numbers of Parliamentarians may increase, we question whether the security of Parliament is protected in the development proposal.

The privatisation of offices and meeting rooms raises questions about the security of tenure of Parliament, the security of Parliamentary process and importantly confidentiality of Parliamentary privilege. Parliament requires the control of movement within and access to Parliamentarians in a secure and controlled manner. The close proximity of the new privately owned offices is of concern for the proper functioning of Parliament (both immediate and long term) independent of commercial interests.

4. Questionable Selection Process

There is little or no information publicly available in regard to the selection criteria used by Treasury to determine the successful developer.

The preferred developers, as determined by the Treasury, are currently seeking an amendment to their application. The amendment is a substantial redesign that was prompted by planning conditions imposed by the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority (SCWA), in their concern that the proposal had an adverse impact on the heritage of Parliament House in particular and Sullivans Cove in general.

These conditions are a substantiation of the concerns that many have expressed over the development including the Hobart City Council in their formal representation to the SCWA.

The preferred design has been the result of a process conducted by the Department of Treasury over an extended period. This process emphasised the importance of maintaining heritage values and yet has produced an outcome that has been determined to adversely impact on the very heritage significance it claimed to protect.

Considering the high heritage values of Parliament House and Sullivans Cove, an outcome which works against these values must bring the entire process, including the evaluation of proposals, into question.

5. Loss of Heritage

The demolition of several of the buildings on the site is detrimental to the Cultural and Historical fabric of Hobart. Two of the buildings proposed for demolition are State Heritage listed – the Government Printing Office at2-4 Salamanca Placeand the office building at12 Murray St. Very little has been provided in terms of feasible or prudent alternative studies for these buildings.

10 Murray St, also proposed for demolition, is architecturally unique in Tasmania and is arguably our best example of high-rise architecture. The building is listed as a place of cultural significance in the Sullivan’s Cove Planning Scheme, it has been nominated for the Tasmanian Heritage Register (in 2002 although for unknown reasons not yet assessed) and was its nominated by the Australian Institute of Architects for the Register of the National Estate in 1997 as part of a nationally funded survey of 20th Century Architecture in the State.

In its advice to the planning authority, the Sullivans Cove Design Panel noted the following: The Panel has expressed a viewthroughout the process for the redevelopment of Parliament Squarethat the removal of 10 Murray Street should be viewed as a least preferred option. This view was determined based on the design merit of the building as an exemplar of high quality mid 20th Century regional modernism, its significant embodied energy and resources, that would be lost in demolition, and its location on the site that enables substantial adjacent development to occur. This advice is also significant in the context of our concern regarding process expressed earlier.

There are a number of other significant concerns in regard to the new development which we would be happy to discuss further with you, however the above highlights some central issues.

During the assessment of the development application, the Parliament Square Development received approximately 50 representations against the proposal. To the best of our knowledge this is unprecedented. The Save 10 Murray group also made a detailed representation during this time which included a petition with over500 signatories(still growing), which included a number of notable architects and academics as well as the original design architect Dirk Bolt.

TheSave 10 Murraygroup consists of a loosely connected group of concerned architects and community members who are opposed to the development primarily because it relies on the demolition of buildings which we believe are of significant heritage and cultural value to Hobart and Tasmania – in particular the State Offices at 10 Murray St. Currently members of the group have lodged appeals against the development in the Resource Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal.

In closing, we urge you to give this matter your consideration to ensure that a more beneficial outcome is achieved. We have included a number of internet links below for additional background reading however if you would like any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours Sincerely,

Briony Kidd
Spokesperson for Save 10 Murray
http://save10murray.wordpress.com/
http://www.gopetition.com.au/petitions/stop-the-demolition-of-10-murray-street/signatures-page1.html

Additional Links
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/09/27/99885_tasmania-news.html
http://www.cundall.com.au/pjt_cs_55standrews.html
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/ourenvironment-ourfuture/documents/DSE%20ESAS%20(low%20res).pdf
http://www.australiandesignreview.com/response/14678-It-s-not-easy-being-a-Brute

http://www.heritage.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahpi/record.pl?TAS7113
http://www.heritage.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahpi/record.pl?TAS2544

http://www.butterpaper.com/cms/news/1331/parliament-square
http://www.butterpaper.com/cms/news/1212/10-murray-st-hobart
http://www.australiandesignreview.com/news/14115-Petition-started-to-save-10-Murray-Street
http://www.abc.net.au/local/videos/2010/05/06/2892372.htm

http://www.heritage.vic.gov.au/Heritage-places-objects/Twentieth-century-heritage.aspx