They've been staged in the shadow of a state election, but the Tasmanian Planning Commission hearings into the Macquarie Point stadium have provided perhaps the sharpest level of detail about the proposed project. Held over the past two weeks, the hearings have formed part of the Project of State Significance process and provided almost 30 stakeholders with the opportunity to present evidence to the planning commission panel assessing the stadium. The project proponent, the Macquarie Point Development Corporation (MPDC), has also had the opportunity to respond to the panel's draft integrated assessment report released earlier this year. Stakeholders were grilled by the panel and lawyers representing both the proponent, and a group opposing the stadium. So, what went on inside the hearings? Click on the bullet points to jump to each section. Land use and developmentUrban design and planningThe roofVisual impactEconomic, social and cultural impactTransport, movement and accessConsultationRemediation and environmentTasmania Football Club Land use and development Lawyers representing the state, Chris Townshend KC and Anthony Spence, based most of their arguments on what constituted an appropriate use of the Macquarie Point site, and the legislation under which the MPDC was operating under. The state posited the planning commission had over relied on a 1991 planning review of the Sullivans Cove area in its draft report, and not enough weight had been given to more current and relevant legislation such as the Macquarie Point Development Corporation Act. The basis for large parts of its argument was that Macquarie Point had been earmarked for development under specific legislation, and that the Project of State Significance process effectively "turned off" other planning schemes. In its opening submission, it told the panel that it would refer to a number of expert witnesses over the course of the hearings. Urban design and planning The panel heard from local architects Leigh Woolley and Jerry De Gryse, who shared concerns about the stadium's size, scale and bulk. Mr De Gryse questioned whether the stadium precinct would be adequately publicly accessible, while Mr Woolley argued that the Domain headland would be "diminished and overwhelmed" by the stadium. Architect and heritage expert Jim Gard'ner presented revised impact assessments of the stadium on various locations around Hobart, based on fresh photo montages submitted by the proponent. He rated the stadium as having a "major" impact on the Hobart Cenotaph, but downgraded its indirect impact on four other sites. For example, Mr Gard'ner had previously rated the stadium's indirect impact on the UTAS Arts building on Hunter Street as 'very high' but downgraded that to 'medium' based on the new images. He recommended several conditions be applied to a planning permit, mostly relating to design tweaks which he believed would lessen the stadium's impact on the surrounding heritage area. Stadium designers, Cox Architecture, presented a new "fly through" of the stadium, as well as an explanation of the stadium design to date. Cox principal director Alastair Richardson was questioned on a wide range of elements, including stadium materials, roof beams, vehicle access, the proposed use of the Goods Shed and the stadium roof. The roof, and its potential impacts, were widely discussed. Planning expert Neil Shepherd, presenting on behalf of the MPDC, said, "the roof represents the element that will provide the greatest visual impact, in my opinion". But he argued "perceptions about the visual prominence of the building must be balanced against the desired role and functionality of the proposal in the chosen location". Respected town planner and urban designer Tim Biles, on behalf of the opponents group Our Place, launched a passionate critique of the stadium roof, decrying its potential impacts on the Hobart Cenotaph Mr Shepherd, in response to questions from planning commission panellist Shelley Penn, said he took the view "the significance of the cenotaph would remain, and that the roof would be another element in the view field". The level of roof transparency, and its potential reflectivity was also raised. Roland Browne, on behalf of Our Place, contended the Mount Nelson vista may not be able to be seen from the Cenotaph through the roof, due to the thickness of the ETFE (ethylene tetrafluoroethylene) material. More information was submitted relating to Cricket Australia and Cricket Tasmania's concern with the roof, and the effect of shadowing it may cause on the cricket pitch. Visual impact A major theme of the hearings was the stadium's visual impact, and how its physical presence may affect the city of Hobart. MPDC presented "visual amenity evidence", including new photo montages of the stadium from various viewpoints around the city, produced by architect Chris Goss of Melbourne-based firm Orbit Solutions. In response, anti-stadium group Our Place submitted an analysis of Mr Goss's images, compiled by landscape architect Barry Murphy. Our Place contested that the Orbit images presented the stadium with a "transparent" roof rather than a "translucent" roof, and questioned why Mr Goss's photo montages were compiled from viewpoints that were obscured by, in one example, a street sign, and, in a shot from the cenotaph, by a visiting cruise ship. Our Place had previously submitted its own photo montages, compiled by local architect Hamish Saul. In a separate submission though, Mr Murphy, Mr Saul and Mr Goss co-signed a "statement of agreed facts" that concluded that Orbit's 3D model of the stadium building was more accurate in relation to the stadium's materiality, its form and mass, and its geometry, compared with Mr Saul's. However, the statement acknowledged a difference in opinion about the roof rendition and focal length used to take the photos, which Mr Murphy argued in his submission should have been 50mm instead of 20mm. Economic, social and cultural impact The panel heard from KPMG economists who prepared economic, financial impact and social benefits reports for the proponent last year. Michael Malakellis and David Harradine argued while their economic analysis found the benefit-cost ratio for the stadium would be less than one, they stressed the project should not be assessed in strict economic terms, given its unquantifiable social and brand value benefits. Stadiums Tasmania chief executive James Avery also made a lengthy presentation to the panel, in which he revealed an updated operating model for the stadium had been developed. He said it estimated the stadium would make $2.2 million per year before taxes, depreciation and amortisation — a way of managing the cost of intangible assets or loans — as opposed to a loss of more than $3 million per year under a previous model. It was based on the new capital cost of the stadium, which was $945 million, but, unlike before, it now includes state ownership of food and beverage facilities, advertising boards, and premium hospitality. The stadium is now forecast to host 37 major events, 40 2-day conferences and 260 "minor events" such as business functions and corporate dinners per year, accounting for 334 events across 377 days. Representatives from Tourism Tasmania and Business Events Tasmania also fronted the hearings highlighting the significance of the proposed 1,500-person conference centre, as did independent local economist Graeme Wells, who disputed some of KPMG's findings. The panel also heard from the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra, which had expressed concern about noise and vibration from the stadium during both the construction and operational phases. In its submission, it proposed a number of conditions that should be applied, should planning approval for the stadium be granted. Transport, movement and access The panel heard a planned underground car park has been reduced from three levels to two, and from 532 spaces to 374, reduced to keep the car park above the groundwater table. The car park is expected to service the entire Macquarie Point precinct and is estimated to cost $97 million. However, according to the MPDC, that cost will not be worn by the state, as the car park "is intended to be delivered as a commercial development opportunity and run by a private operator". The MPDC also states the car park is not required for the stadium's operations. Graeme Steverson of consultants WSP presented to the panel on transport matters, on behalf of the MPDC. He modelled a range of traffic and transport scenarios for large-scale sporting and concert events. Cox Architecture submitted diagrams that showed egress from the stadium in the event of an emergency, and fielded questions about the safety of the venue. Consultation Several stakeholders raised what they said was a lack of consultation by the MPDC and the state Government to the panel as a major concern. Daniel Hanna, representing Federal Group, which owns several properties on the Hobart waterfront, said the stadium would be detrimental to his company's business and that Federal had not been adequately consulted. Lawyers representing the MPDC referenced seven meetings between 2023 and 2024 between the proponent and Federal regarding the stadium, but Mr Hanna did not consider those meetings as adequate consultation. Historian and Aboriginal heritage experts Greg Lehman and Daphne Habibis echoed those sentiments, as did Nala Mansell from the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Ms Mansell said Aboriginal land at Macquarie Point should be transferred to the Tasmanian Aboriginal people. Remediation and environment The panel heard from the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), which had previously expressed concern about groundwater and contaminated fill at Macquarie Point. The MPDC submitted that only about 10 per cent of fill material earmarked to be excavated will be "level three" material — material that requires an additional level of disposal and storage management. The EPA submission outlined conditions it believed should be imposed, should the stadium development proceed, including that the director of the EPA be able to approve a stadium Construction Environmental Management Plan, and have a role in approving stadium design plans. It also wants to be the body responsible for enforcing those, and other conditions. Tasmania Football Club The Tasmania Football Club, the Devils, was represented by chief executive officer Brendon Gale, who told the panel via a presentation that the stadium was crucial to the club's business case and viability. He said that "net stadium revenues" accounted for 47 per cent of a typical AFL club's revenue and called them "the most significant driver of financial competitive and financial strength" of a club. He added that stadium revenues accounted for just 43 per cent of club revenue 10 years ago. Mr Gale said there existed a strong correlation between a club's off-field financial strength and their on-field success.