Uni will review campus options

THERE will be no wholesale sell-off of the University of Tasmania’s Sandy Bay campus as it considers two options for the future, says Vice Chancellor Rufus Black.

Professor Black said the university was currently considering its future direction in the south, ahead of a decision by the University Council, expected to be made in April.

It comes as UTAS takes the Tasmanian Planning Commission to the Supreme Court over a planning refusal, which throws a spanner in the works of its efforts to offload some of its redundant assets.

Professor Black said there were two models being considered for the future of the southern campus.

“A city-centric model would see our university operate across a closely connected set of precincts in the heart of Hobart, while retaining some accommodation and recreation facilities at Sandy Bay,” he said.

“A distributed model would see the Sandy Bay facilities rebuilt and developed in a redesigned landscape consolidated below Churchill Avenue.

“There is no scenario in which we would abandon what has been our home in Sandy Bay of these past 60 years.”

Prof Black said whichever direction the university took, it would be done in consultation with the community, and parts of the campus were likely to be redeveloped for housing, community spaces and recreational facilities.

But in order to do so, the university needs a number of amendments to be made to the Hobart Interim Planning Scheme, which would need to be approved by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

UTAS put forward an application to the Hobart City Council last year for an adjustment to the zoning of six sites — the commerce building, Hytten Hall, the UniPrint office, and buildings at 6 Grace St and 371 Sandy Bay Rd as well as 100ha of land above Churchill Avenue.

The council approved initiating the planning scheme amendment, but the TPC ultimately refused it.

The university appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

In court yesterday, lawyer Anthony Spence said the university launched the appeal on several grounds, including that it had been denied natural justice and that the outcome of the decision was unreasonable.

Justice Stephen Estcourt reserved his decision until next Thursday.