Give Fragrance the Flick

Help stop the Fragrance Towers, proposed for Hobart, and protect our unique city. Fill out the submission form below.

The Hobart City Council is required to seek submissions on the Fragrance Tower proposal, including regarding the impacts on Hobart's heritage, character, traffic and parking.

Name *
Further Action
The 2-6 Collins Street Tower will have it's own Development application, a separate submission is required.
Submissions must include contact details and an address to be valid.

We will lodge your submission with the Hobart City Council during the official public consultation period. TCT can present your submission to the Hobart City Council. It is not a legal requirement that you review the development application documentation before making a submission. However, the Council can only take into account submissions if you link your concerns to specific features of the proposal, such as its height or increased strain on traffic and parking.

If you would also like to make a submission on the 2-6 Collins Street proposal please check the box above.


Custom Submission Guide

28-30 Davey Street fragrance Tower proposal


The proposal:
- The FT proposal was originally proposed to be 120 m in height but media reports suggest it may be increased to 210 metres, with 186m being habitable.
- The FT is proposed for 28-30 Davey Street, which is opposite Franklin Square and between the Executive Building and the old Hydro head office.
- The FT is proposed for a site that is close to at least two Places of Cultural Significance: Franklin Square and the former Hydro-Electric Commission head office (Heritage Tasmania 2017).

Key impacts: The FT proposal would totally dominate nearby buildings and streets, being nearly five times the height of nearby buildings, including the heritage listed Hydro building. The height and type of the FT building would contravene the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme by: causing devastating visual impacts; causing massive shading of the surrounding buildings and Franklin Square; and detracting from the value of nearby heritage sites.

Precedent: If the FT was approved it would be a dangerous precedent, possibly leading to other similar skyscrapers.

Glass skyscraper: From the architectural images released to the media, it is obvious that the FT building will have a reflective glass cladding that would be totally out of place in this part of Hobart.

Traffic: The FT is proposed to be a hotel and we understand it will need to provide upwards of 95 new car parking spaces. The added vehicular movements will add to the congestion on Davey Street and impact the pedestrian friendly Morrison Street. This is contrary to the SCPS which requires that new buildings must not create vehicular traffic that is ‘detrimental’ to other Sullivans Cove vehicle movements and amenity.

Hobart: a natural amphitheatre: One of the attributes of Hobart that is valued by its residents and visitors alike is the natural amphitheatre that is created by the mountainous backdrop and hills that slope down to the water front. To protect this natural amphitheatre, the SCPS includes controls to limit the height of buildings close to Sullivan Cove. If the SCPS is followed the Hobart City Council should refuse the FT proposal.


pre-prepared Letter (copy to submission field if required)

To the General Manager, Hobart City Council,

I wish to make a submission on the Fragrance Tower (FT) Development at 28-30 Davey Street, Hobart.

The council should refuse the current FT proposal as it is not the type of development that I want in Sullivans Cove and because it does not meet the requirements of the Sullivans Cove Planning Scheme (SCPS). I have included some of examples below. 

HEIGHT: Contrary to the SCPS, the proposed FT is nearly five times the height of nearby buildings and would dominate the surrounding buildings and streets.

The height of the proposed FT building at 120 metres (possibly 210 metres) greatly exceeds the ‘Deemed to Comply’ height limit of 18 metres imposed by the SCPS (SCPS, Figure 8). The FT proposal would fail to meet the ‘Urban Form Objectives’ for buildings above 18 m, which state that it “must not be individually prominent in terms of contrast with neighbouring buildings by being significantly higher...” (SCPS, p. 85). The FT proposal would clearly be “individually prominent” compared to nearby buildings such as the old Hydro Electric Commission building at 46m and the Executive Building at 40m.  

Additionally, the FT proposal would fail to meet requirements of ‘Discretionary buildings’, including that they be “adjacent to a Place of Cultural Significance and which are not more prominent in the streetscape by strong contrast of scale, height, colour and tone with the buildings constructedon the place...” (SCPS p.89).

HERITAGE: The height and location of the proposed FT building would negatively impact two nearby heritage listed places, the former Hydro-Electric Commission head office and Franklin Square (Heritage Tasmania 2017). This would be contrary to the SCPS ‘zone’ or ‘Activity Area’ Objectives, which require that developments “respect the cultural heritage and character of the Activity Area” and Performance Criteria that “All use and development within the activity area must demonstrably contribute to, and enhance the cultural heritage, built form (bulk, height, volume and urban detail) and spatial characteristics of the activity area’ (SCPS, p.42).

CHARACTER / URBAN FORM: The bulk and height of the FT proposal are contrary to the SCPS ‘Future Urban Form’ provision that states that “Development within Sullivans Cove will respect the natural amphitheatre created by the water and mountainous backdrop” (SCPS, p.9). It would also be contrary to the ‘Urban Character’ principle (page 11) that “No new development or part of a development is to be individually prominent particularly when viewed from Sullivans Cove or the River Derwent’ (SCPS, p.11).

TRAFFIC: The FT proposal would attract significant additional vehicle traffic, adding to the current high traffic levels on, or, crossing Davey Street and negatively impacting traffic movements and pedestrian use of Sullivans Cove. This would be contrary to the SCPS ‘Traffic, Access and Parking’ ‘Principles’ that require that a development will “not create traffic flows and movements that are detrimental to safety or amenity” (SCPS p.143) and the ‘Matters to be Considered’ that state that it ‘Will not generate vehicular traffic which is detrimental to other vehicle movements in Sullivans Cove’ (SCPS, page 146).

PARKING: The FT proposal may increase competition for the highly restricted car parking places in Sullivans Cove. The FT proposal will find it difficult to address the SCPS ‘Principles’ that require “adequate provision for the” “parking of all vehicular traffic” while making parking areas “available for public use and not restricted to traffic generated by the particular development” (SCPS p. 143-144).

STATEWIDE PLANNING SCHEME: The new State-wide Planning Scheme has the potential to protect the values and characteristics that make Tasmania a unique place in the world. The new scheme can also be used as a lever to achieve better health outcomes in our communities and ensure people have a say when developments (like the Fragrance Towers) are proposed.

Please make sure that the Local Planning Provisions being developed for Hobart, as a part the State-wide Planning Scheme, protect what we value most about Tasmania’s capital.

Do not allow the vested interests of international property developers to compromise our home.

Thank you for reviewing my submission.