Tasmanian Times

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. No price is too high for the privilege of owning yourself. ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Economy

Save 10 Murray take it to the Supreme Court

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
Email: save10murray@gmail.com
Twitter: @save10murray
Website: http://save10murray.wordpress.com/ END OF PRESS RELEASE

Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
7 Comments

7 Comments

  1. Robin Halton

    January 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    #6 William, it is highly possible that a part of the Federal money that is supposed to be used to rebuild the Royal is also being used in the forced recent restructure within the hospital due to the State government’s inability to normally fund the operation as it has done in the past!
    The recent alterations and break up of hospital wards has involved hordes of tradesmen constantly working around nursing staff. Nurses have copped many changes to the convenient locations of essential equipment that they routinely use for public patients under their care.
    Yes, nurses under seige can cope but the forced changes but it will come at a personal cost to the health and welfare of the nursing staff as they adjust to work in a more demanding and forever changing working environment, for what gain?
    Eventually we will probably see after years of over fiddling about, money will run out and little will achieved as original targets for the rebuild fall behind.
    Its not Mr Wilkies fault as the State makes its own decisions on how the money should be spent within the broad spectra of its responsibility for its provision of public health.
    At the end of the day knowing well the financial management ability of this State government, nothing will be saved in fact unfinished business of public health reforms could result in more public debt.

  2. William Boeder

    January 1, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    #3 and #4 Barnaby and Robin. So dim are the State’s visionary spooks that “to save money or better utilize the Federal Grant money obtained by Andrew Wilke and directed to the Hobart Hospital,” would be howled down by the State’s Labor politicians and Public Service Heads of Departments.

    This money could well benefit the originally proposed purpose of serving the Hobart Hospital’s needs whilst saving the entirety of the allocated funding for knocking down one building simply to erect another that is little more than an expensive monument to Michael Aird and themselves.

    To push ahead with this Michael Aird monument to himself and others- enshrining the irrational pointless largesse common to State government Treasurers, is only a face saving exercise, of which is effectively donating our hard-earned to this developer and those other begging recipients of our taxpayer money.

    Enough of this grandstanding stupidity from this State government.


    Editor’s note: sentence deleted see “some legal red flags” section of the TT code http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/pages/legalbits

  3. Robin Halton

    December 31, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    In the current State of madness I would dare any developer to pull down No10 Murray St?

  4. Robin Halton

    December 23, 2011 at 1:03 am

    #3 Barnaby, The ongoing problem attached to successive State Labor governments along with indecisive local government input is their lack of ability to systematically allow State planners to come up with essential services infrastructural projects to suit a modern city in a coordinated manner.
    Political animals especially the former Premier David Bartlett stampeded much of the public opinion and placed his own personal egotistical footprint on the site to attract developers making all sorts of upfront promises to Citta that No10 demolition followed by the new Parliament Square development project, the government would rent many of the new office spaces created!
    Your suggestion that No 10 could become an annexe of the RHH deserves merit as it now seems that future Public Hospital services will be scattered throughout the city.
    Yes, Mr Wilkie should be briefed as there is merit in what you are suggesting to more importantly benefit hospital services as a priority over general government office space.
    I wonder if former Health Minister Lara Gidding who wasted $12M on the ill fated waterfront Greenfield site study ever considered the possibility of No10 as a major annexe of the Royal!
    As ugly as No10 is, the building is probably sound for at least another 50 years and should not be demolished.

  5. Barnaby Drake

    December 22, 2011 at 12:29 am

    This building could be given a new face and be used as an extension to the Royal Hobart Hospital, saving the taxpayer an enormous expense. After all, they are sitting on $176 million Federal grant, care of Andrew Wilkie. Why not use it here and have some change left over to pay for a few doctors and nurses to run it. It could be administered from the small heritage property next door!

  6. Philip Lowe

    December 22, 2011 at 12:18 am

    Jobs jobs jobs jobs
    jobs jobs jobs jobs

    We know it don’t make sense
    We deal in real pretence

    but it means

    jobs jobs jobs jobs
    jobs jobs jobs jobs

  7. Jeremy Charleton

    December 21, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Since when have any politicians cared about the ‘economic climate’. The general impression that I gather from pollies is that once they get elected they break promises and do anything they damn well please as long as it suits their own cosy agenda and that of their friends and families who form a large part of the bureaucracy. As for ‘heritage values’, the pollies don’t give them a single thought. It’s just as well that such a thing exists otherwise Hobart and Launceston would wind up being small replicas of Melbourne, heaven forbid.

Leave a Reply

To Top