HOBART – 22 DECEMBER, 2011. Lobby group Save 10 Murray announced today it will appeal the Resources Management and Planning Appeals Tribunal decision of 2 December that would allow the ‘Parliament Square’ redevelopment to proceed.
The group, acting on legal advice, lodged its appeal with the Supreme Court yesterday.
The RMPAT decision allowed that the heritage-listed former government printing office at 2-4 Salamanca could be demolished, making way for a redevelopment of the site—which also includes the demolition of the iconic 1960s office block at 10 Murray Street.
Save 10 Murray argues that 2-4 Salamanca cannot be demolished under heritage legislation.
“We have always been in favour of the site being redeveloped in an appropriate way, conforming with the planning scheme and in accordance with the site’s heritage values,” says Save 10 Murray spokesperson Briony Kidd, “Unfortunately, the proposed scheme does not meet this standard.”
The Supreme Court challenge is in line with the group’s aim to ensure that due process is followed in the assessment of this scheme, not just to save the 10 Murray St building.
Save 10 Murray believe that in approving the demolition of the Printing Authority building (2-4 Salamanca Place) the RMPAT has not only erred in its finding but also neglected the finding of the Supreme Court in the first appeal.
“This case has repercussions for heritage listing in Tasmania,” says Briony Kidd. “What is the value of listing, if a developer can simply argue that demolition is more convenient?
“It should be noted that 10 Murray Street was nominated for heritage-listing in 2002 but that that nomination was never assessed. There has yet to be a satisfactory explanation for this oversight.”
Save 10 Murray also objects to the redevelopment in that it does not represent best practice in sustainable development.
“Demolition is an old-fashioned idea. From heritage, economic and environmental perspectives, it makes more sense to continue to use assets that we already have. The idea that this scheme is environmentally responsible is an example of ‘green washing.’”
“The truth is that the greenest building is one that is already built.
“We also question the unnecessary expenditure this scheme represents for Government, requiring the new office building to undergo an expensive fit-out with taxpayers footing the bill, to then be leased back for public service use at a high rate.”
“Is a new office building for politicians really a priority in the present economic climate?
“A retrofit of existing buildings would be more cost effective and respectful of heritage values.”
Save 10 Murray
Website: http://save10murray.wordpress.com/ END OF PRESS RELEASE