The workload of the John Langoulant-chaired stadia taskforce got a little heavier last week, following the decision by Sport and Recreation Minister John Kobelke to include Burswood’s late proposal for a 60,000-seat outdoor stadium and 35,000-seat rectang
The workload of the John Langoulant-chaired stadia taskforce got a little heavier last week, following the decision by Sport and Recreation Minister John Kobelke to include Burswood’s late proposal for a 60,000-seat outdoor stadium and 35,000-seat rectangular venue among the contenders.
The taskforce has less than six weeks until its official March 31 final report deadline.
It is under pressure to provide a list of options for the government, including detailed site and financial analysis of proposals for East Perth, Subiaco-Kitchener/Mueller Parks, and a staged redevelopment of Subiaco Oval, and now Burswood.
The taskforce will also present potential options for the use of the WACA Ground and Members Equity Stadium.
While offering a bountiful surplus of land, the Burswood proposal appears to raise a number of challenges to the state government, including improving access to and from the area and piling costs, associated with stabilising the ‘boggy’ soil on the peninsula in preparation for development.
A transport study presented to the taskforce recently by the Burswood proponents is understood to have answered most of the taskforce’s initial questions.
It has been more than a year since the taskforce began consulting with key stakeholders including local government and sporting codes on the stadium. In that time, the contentious issues of management and governance have emerged as sticking points.
The taskforce’s interim report, released in June 2006, recommended that national/international level sporting infrastructure be independent of sporting codes and managed through a trust, or series of trusts, under the direction of state government.
Western Australia is perceived as being out of step with contemporary stadium governance models demonstrated in Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales, where the respective governments wield primary control over major stadiums.
It is understood that, while most sporting codes are receptive to the new governance model, the taskforce has come up against stiff opposition from the WA Football Commission.
The WAFC has made it clear that long-term certainty for football, WA’s largest sporting code, and the ability to control its own destiny for the development of the game, are its key priorities.
In line with this intention is its proposal for a staged $400 million rebuilding of Subiaco Oval.
WACF chief executive Wayne Bradshaw told WA Business News late last year the decision to move away from Subiaco Oval would be determined by the resolution of governance, venue management rights and appropriate financial compensation.
At stake if it were to move is its 99-year lucrative lease over Subiaco Oval and control over fixtures.
Although it is not required to present a preferred option to Mr Kobelke, the taskforce has not curbed its enthusiasm for the East Perth stadium proposal in recent months, believing it to address most of the important benchmarks concerning road and rail access, car parking, site orientation and minimal resumption of private property.
The taskforce believes that any major venue should have a public transport use of between 50 and 70 per cent.
While also requiring the resumption of some private property, the proposal to build a new stadium across Kitchener and Mueller Parks in Subiaco is still a strong contender.
The Subiaco option would provide a total of 17.9 hectares of land, including the existing oval, on which to build stadium of north-south orientation, and the potential for about 10ha of public open space.
However, the plan would require a partial sinking of the Fremantle rail line, further increasing the cost impost of the stadium on the government.