Title of Report Or Proposal

Highland Lakes Settlement Strategy

Prepared for: Central Highlands Council

Prepared by: Catherine Nicholson December 2009

transport infrastructure | community infrastructure | industrial infrastru cture | climate change

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... i 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Purpose of Settlement Strategy ...... 1 2. The Strategy Development Process ...... 2 2.1 Project Stages...... 2 3. Strategy Summary (JLUPI Phase One) ...... 3 4. Description of the Area ...... 4 4.1 Central Highlands Council ...... 4 4.2 The Highland Lakes...... 5 4.3 Demographics ...... 7 4.4 Demographic Drivers ...... 8 5. Key Issues for the Highland Lakes ...... 12 5.1 Protection of the Lakes Natural Values ...... 12 5.2 Shack Development around the Lakes...... 13 5.3 Infrastructure Provision...... 17 5.4 Agencies with Land and Water Management Responsibilities ...... 21 5.5 Land Use Issues ...... 22 6. Opportunities for the Lakes ...... 30 6.1 Hydro Tasmania infrastructure ...... 30 6.2 Fishing ...... 30 6.3 Tourism...... 31 6.4 Alternative Energy...... 34 6.5 Forestry ...... 34 6.6 Agriculture...... 34 7. Settlement Strategy ...... 34 7.1 Aims and Objectives...... 34 7.2 Key Assets to be Protected...... 34 7.3 Strategies to Protect the Key Assets ...... 35 7.4 Settlement Hierarchy ...... 37 7.5 Service Centre Settlements...... 39 7.6 Tourist Focused Settlements...... 43 7.7 Minor Shack Settlements ...... 43 7.8 Rural Areas ...... 45 7.9 Conservation Areas ...... 45 8. References ...... 46

Appendix A Map of Study Area Appendix B Land Use in the Highland Lakes Area Appendix C Settlement Hierarchy Map Appendix D Miena Appendix E Wilburville Appendix F Bronte Park

© 2009 pitt&sherry This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form is prohibited.

Name Signature Date

Authorised by: Barry Neilsen 03 December 2009

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

Executive Summary Phase 1 of the Joint Land Use Planning Initiative (JLUPI) Report identified the Highland Lakes area as an area with its own unique issues and suggested that it should have its own settlement strategy. It recognised that the area has experienced a level of uncoordinated development over a number of years and a settlement strategy would assist in setting a direction for the Lakes that would focus settlement in a number of key locations and assist in protecting the environmental values of the area.

As with the other settlements within the Central Highlands Council and other council areas, the key desired outcomes identified in the Joint Land Use Strategy which inform this report for the Highland Lakes are: • Sustainable development. • Land use efficiency. • Protection of rural land use. • Protection of the landscape. • Accessibility. • Protection of natural resources.

The settlement strategy examines the Highland Lakes area in terms of the existing settlements, the levels of growth being experienced, the infrastructure available and the economic, social and environmental issues affecting them. It establishes objectives and recommendations as to what settlements can best cater for increased growth and what needs to be done to ensure services and facilities are best located to assist with maintaining the ongoing viability of settlements and also the protection of the unique natural values of the Highland Lakes area.

Part 1 of the strategy details the strategy development process, the policy context and the vision for the Highland Lakes. Part 2 of the strategy details the individual settlements and outlines the values to be protected, the opportunities, the key issues and the needs of each settlement. It then makes a number of general and specific recommendations in relation to zoning, land use, waste management and lot sizes for the relevant settlements.

For the purpose of this study, the Highland Lakes area is taken to include all of the Central Plateau within the Central Highlands Municipality and is subdivided into three sub regions as follows: • The Eastern Lakes area - consisting of Great Lake, Arthurs Lake, Lakes Sorell and Crescent, Lagoon of Islands and Woods Lake. The main access route is by the A5 via Bothwell otherwise known as the Lakes Highway or Lakes Road. Many of the small shack settlements are located in this sub region, as well as the larger shack settlements of Miena and Wilburville • The South West area - consisting of the lakes and sub region accessed by the A10 via Ouse, otherwise known as the Marlborough Road The area includes Lake Echo, Lake Binney, Bradys Lake, and Bronte Lagoon and is the part of the Highlands with most of the Hydro infrastructure and old Hydro settlements such as Bronte Park, Wayatinah and Tarraleah • The North West area - which is the most remote and untouched area, much of it is a conservation reserve with no real settlements.

Key Findings Declining average household sizes (and increasing median ages) are typical in the towns and settlements throughout the Central Highlands, including the Highland Lakes area.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm i

The demographic analysis for both the whole municipal area and the Highland Lakes area highlights the urgent need to consider the implications of a significantly aging population when planning for the future of the area. In the case of the Highland Lakes the situation is further complicated by the seasonal nature of the population with very low winter occupancy (estimated to be only a few hundred people) and occupancy in the summer months estimated to be approximately 1900 people. The basis for this estimate is explained in more detail in section 5 of this report.

The lakes are the unique feature of this area. Their health is what the local economy and most residents and visitor lifestyle is centred on. These assets must be protected for the value they contribute to the lifestyle of residents and the regional economy and for their intrinsic value.

Approximately, 688 lots were created in the various settlements in the Highland Lakes area from 1997 to April 2009 (based on Council data). The bulk of these lots were created in Miena (133) and at Arthurs Lake (286) – mainly around Flintstone (245). It is reasonable to assume that the majority of the lots at Flintstone as well as most of the other settlements included in the Shacks Site Project figures have been created due to the Shack Sites project. Subdivisions that appear to be separate to the Shacks Site Project are a 77 lot subdivision approved at Wayatinah and 133 lots created at Miena.

However on the basis of the Public Accounts Report as well as the Council records, it seems reasonable to assume that the number of shacks now existing in the Highlands Lakes area is in the region of 741 shacks created under the Shacks Site Project, plus 78 at Wyatinah plus 133 at Miena, giving a total of 952 shacks.

Assuming an average occupancy rate of 2 persons, then a population of approximately 1904 persons can be assumed for the area during the ‘in season’ times of the year. This figure is not allowing for holiday accommodation in purpose built visitor facilities, but then it is also assuming 100% occupancy of the shacks which would be overstating the reality.

The vast majority of shack settlements in the Highland Lakes area do not have reticulated water. The only settlement with water reticulation (based on 2006 data obtained during the JLUPI Phase 1 project) is Wayatinah, which has 55 connections, 134 Ml capacity, and 9 Ml current usage

The bulk of the settlements in the Highland Lakes area have domestic waste water treatment systems – either septic tanks or aerated waste water treatment systems (AWTS).

Today the Highland Lakes area has three waste transfer stations operating - Bronte Park, Arthurs Lake and Miena. Miena also has a recycling facility.

The Holiday Residential zone is the zone within which all settlements in the Highland Lakes are in. The Central Highlands Planning Scheme has a number of development standards, relating to the Holiday Residential zone but does not have a minimum lots size stated for subdivision in the Holiday Residential zone. An analysis of the larger settlements indicates that the average lot size in Miena is 4687 sq metres, Bronte Park is 3225 sq metres and in Wilburville is 4706 sq metres. In some of the other settlements like Flintstone it is substantially smaller.

Given that the bulk of the existing settlements are within the Holiday Residential zone and for the majority of settlements little vacant land zoned Holiday Residential exists, it can be assumed that whilst demand may be modest, supply is also limited. Recent applications for rezoning of Rural land to Holiday Residential at Flintstone and Wilburville are evidence of a demand for more development land. The extent of 20 ha lot subdivision in the rural zone (minimum lot size is 20 ha) is also evidence of a demand for either rural living blocks or people accepting these larger blocks because smaller ones within the Holiday Residential zone are not available.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm ii

The current minimum lot size in the rural zoned land of the Highland Lakes is 20 ha, although most lots in the Highland Lakes significantly exceed this minimum

Key Desired Outcomes The key assets of the Highland Lakes area that need protecting are: • The Lakes – water quality, water levels and fish habitat • The Landscape • Hydro assets – power stations, dams, pipelines, buildings • Natural Values – flora and fauna • Rural Land. • The ‘shack’ character of the existing settlements

Broad Recommendations Protect the lakes by; • The provision of foreshore reserves of a minimum 100m width • Protect water quality by ensuring a thorough waste treatment assessment is part of any subdivision application, with a guideline minimum lots size in Village and Residential zones of 1500 square metres, but only where some form of a reticulated waste water system is possible. • Discourage private boat ramps or jetties. Contain any new public ones to existing locations and only where recommended in a recreational or lake management plan • Conduct a detailed assessment of the level of usage and demand for facilities across the Highland Lakes area, in relation to lakeside services and facilities. From this analysis a strategy to manage the demand and decide on the best locations for facilities and the appropriate range of facilities could be provided and developed. This would greatly assist the multiple management agencies in deciding what level of facilities are most appropriate and where they would be best located.

Protect the landscape by including provisions in the planning scheme that require buildings to be generally subdued in the landscape, to be well set back from the lake foreshore and where roads run close to lakeshores, where possible to limit development to the inland side of the road.

Protect the natural values by ensuring provisions in the planning scheme that require consideration of threatened flora and fauna habitat, protection of water quality, setbacks from the lakes, bushfire management and vegetation clearing and landscaping that is sensitive to the need to also protect habitat. Ensuring the growth is located in areas where services already exist and can be more effectively utilised, also helps protect natural values.

Protect Hydro assets by ensuring setbacks from lakes are adhered to and the heritage values of the Hydro infrastructure are recognised in the planning scheme. Recognise the potential of the old Hydro towns as tourist focused centres.

Recommended Settlement Hierarchy In describing the existing settlements in the Highland Lakes area there appears to be a simple settlement hierarchy that reflects the existing realities and allows some opportunities for growth in some targeted areas. The suggested hierarchy is as follows: • Service Centre Settlements where there is at least 50 plus shacks or residential dwellings, some existing infrastructure and services such as a store, some accommodation, a service station, and some camping facilities and some basic community services such as a rural fire brigade or waste transfer station. There is potential to provide for further residential and tourist development and build on the existing services available.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm iii

In the Eastern Lakes area the service centre settlements are; • Great Lake – Miena, • Arthurs Lake – Wilburville

In the SW Lakes Area the service centre settlement is Bronte Park.

Specific recommendations for these settlements are contained in section 7.5 of the report and illustrated on the relevant maps in the Appendices.

• Tourist Focused Settlements are mainly the old Hydro towns and retain some dwellings and/or shacks and tourist related infrastructure such as a caravan/camping park, tourist accommodation, and food services. Future development is likely to continue to be tourist focused. Specific recommendations are contained in Section 7.6. • Minor Shack Settlements are the settlements which have originated mainly as fishing shacks on Crown land but now have gained freehold title via the Shack Site Categorisation Program, and have basic domestic water and sewerage infrastructure but few other services. A listing of the minor shack settlements and specific recommendations is contained in Section 7.7.

In relation to rural areas the report states that a change to the minimum lot size in the Rural zone needs further discussion, but a 100 hectare minimum lot size may be appropriate to ensure that rural land is protected for rural purposes. However it may also be appropriate to consider allowing some limited Rural Living land to cater for those who wish to live on larger blocks. To maximise the potential to use existing services these should be located relatively close to the existing settlements. A possible location for some rural living is in the Barren Plains area, near Miena.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm iv

PART 1:

Background Information, Issues and Opportunities

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose of Settlement Strategy The municipalities of Brighton, Central Highlands, Derwent Valley and Southern Midlands have committed to the preparation of a series of strategy reports which will inform the eventual development of four new planning schemes. This follows on from the preparation of a Joint Land Use Strategy for the sub-region, which was completed in November 2008. The Joint Land Use Planning Initiative (JLUPI) Report focused on four key themes of Liveability, Work Opportunities, New Investment and Sustainability.

The JLUPI Report identified the Highland Lakes area as an area with its own unique issues and suggested that it should have its own settlement strategy. It recognised that the area has experienced a level of uncoordinated development over a number of years and a settlement strategy would assist in setting a direction for the Lakes that would focus settlement in a number of key locations and assist in protecting the environmental values of the area.

As with the other settlements within the Central Highlands Council and other council areas, the key desired outcomes identified in the Joint Land Use Strategy and which will inform this report for the Highland Lakes are: • Sustainable development. • Land use efficiency. • Protection of rural land use. • Protection of the landscape. • Accessibility. • Protection of natural resources.

The settlement strategy will examine the Highland Lakes area in terms of the existing settlements, the levels of growth being experienced, the infrastructure available and the economic, social and environmental issues affecting them. It will establish objectives and recommendations as to what settlements can best cater for increased growth and what needs to be done to ensure services and facilities are best located to assist with maintaining the ongoing viability of settlements and also the protection of the unique natural values of the Highland Lakes area.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 1

2. The Strategy Development Process The four Southern Sub Regional Councils that includes Brighton, New Norfolk, Southern Midlands and Central Highlands appointed pitt&sherry and Parsons Brinckerhoff (the Project Team) to undertake the staged development of a settlement strategy.

The project team included expertise in rural and regional planning, land management and natural resources. Because of the unique nature of the Highland Lakes and the different development issues associated with it, a separate settlement strategy was undertaken for this area. Although a separate strategy, recommendations relating to any planning scheme changes must still mesh with the planning scheme provisions for the wider council area and sub region, as well as following the requirements of the State Government’s Planning Directive One (PD1). The structure, format, definitions and zones that may be used in any future planning scheme for the Highland Lakes and the wider sub region are all detailed in PD1.

2.1 Project Stages

2.1.1 Consultation • Initial meetings were held with the relevant council officers from the Central Highlands Council. • A Community Workshop was held on Friday 22 May at the Council Chambers in Bothwell. This was attended by representatives from the Central Highlands Progress Association, Central Highlands Shackowners Association, Hydro Tasmania, Inland Fisheries, Landholders, Local Councillors, the Mayor General Manager and Council Planner for the Central Highlands Council. The workshop involved getting the attendees to work in a group with a number of maps to define the values they want protected in the Highland Lakes area, the needs and opportunities that exist in the area, any types of development or changes to the existing planning scheme that they would like to see occurring and site specific changes they would like to see happening in the area. • Additional meetings or discussions with Hydro Tasmania, Inland Fisheries, Sport and Rec Tasmania, Tourism Tasmania, DED and officers working on Regional Planning Projects were held and a meeting of the Highland Lakes Recreational Committee was attended. • Following completion of a draft strategy, a presentation of it to Councillors will occur. • Following feedback from Councillors, advertising of draft for informal comment will occur. • Following assessment of the representations received, a final strategy document will be developed.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 2

3. Strategy Summary (JLUPI Phase One) The Joint Land Use Planning Initiative (JLUPI) Phase One investigated a number of key issues for the sub region focused around four key themes of Liveability, Work Opportunities, New Investment and Sustainability.

The Strategy tackled a range of issues that were considered to inhibit the planned, integrated growth and development of the sub-region, limiting its capacity to capitalise on built and natural assets, strengths and resources. Specifically, for the Highland Lakes area these issues were identified as: • Uncoordinated shack development over a number of years. These “shack settlements” are experiencing increased development pressure from both temporary and permanent dwelling establishment. • The annual variations in occupancy numbers for most of the settlements. The location and nature of the settlements in the Highland Lakes means the area experiences large influxes of visitors concentrated at certain times throughout the year, with a general lack of appropriate support infrastructure. • Ribbon development around the lakes. Some concerns have been expressed about public access and water quality issues. • The need to protect the Lakes as an asset for a number of key stakeholders as well as the wider community. The recreational, tourism, fishing, water and hydro power opportunities within the Highland Lakes area provide significant economic benefit for the Lakes area, the Central Highlands and Tasmania wide. • The need to maintain public access to the lakes, limit further ribbon development and ensure environmental and water quality objectives are met.

The Strategy recommended that a specific settlement strategy was required for the Highland Lakes area and should incorporate the following elements: • Determine and finalise all settlement areas. • Assess supply / demand for fishing and recreational accommodation. • Carry out detailed examination of potential rural zonings, rural subdivision policies and potential alternative controls. • Identify and incorporate relevant NRM measures, as appropriate.

It specifically recommended that no new settlements should be established, that future development should be concentrated in and adjacent to existing settlement areas, where it could be demonstrated that existing infrastructure and environmental values would not be compromised.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 3

4. Description of the Area

4.1 Central Highlands Council

Figure 1 - Central Highlands Council area. Source JLUPI Phase One Report

The Central Highlands Council area covers most of the mountainous centre of the State with a total area of 8,010 square kilometres (11.6% of the State). The land tenure is dominated by Forestry Tasmania, Hydro Tasmania and land managed by the Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts. The municipality has national and world standard parks and conservation areas. This includes the Great Lake and the Lakes district. The major economic activities are farming, forestry and tourism.

The municipality is bounded by Northern Midlands, Derwent Valley, West Coast, Meander Valley, and Southern Midlands. The settlement areas within the municipality are Bothwell, Ouse, Hamilton, Miena and Gretna.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 4

4.2 The Highland Lakes

4.2.1 The Area Defined The area referred to as the Highland Lakes generally encompasses the high upland area of the Central Highlands Municipality and more or less conforms to what is also referred to as the Central Plateau. However, there is no one totally accepted definition of the Highland Lakes. The extent of the area people refer to as the Highland Lakes varies depending on whether the person is referring to the fishing lakes that they believe form part of the Highland Lakes, whether they are referring to the Hydro lakes, or whether they are referring to the shack settlements that are considered to be located in the Highlands. The Central Highlands Council does not have a map defining the extent of the Highland Lakes area.

For the purpose of this study, the Highland Lakes area is taken to include all of the Central Plateau within the Central Highlands Municipality and is subdivided into three sub regions as follows: • The Eastern Lakes area - consisting of Great Lake, Arthurs Lake, Lakes Sorell and Crescent, Lagoon of Islands and Woods Lake. The main access route is by the A5 via Bothwell otherwise known as the Lakes Highway or Lakes Road. Many of the small shack settlements are located in this sub region, as well as the larger shack settlements of Miena and Wilburville • The South West area - consisting of the lakes and sub region accessed by the A10 via Ouse, otherwise known as the Marlborough Highway or Road. The area includes Lake Echo, Lake Binney, Bradys Lake, and Bronte Lagoon and is the part of the Highlands with most of the Hydro infrastructure and old Hydro settlements such as Bronte Park, Wayatinah and Tarraleah • The North West area - which is the most remote and untouched area, much of it is a conservation reserve with no real settlements.

A location map indicating the study area as discussed is attached in Appendix A.

4.2.2 Brief History of Settlement

Aboriginal Settlement The Highland Lakes area was almost exclusively the territory of the Big River Tribe, one of the nine Tasmanian Aboriginal tribes - a tribe refers to the main political unit. Typically each tribe was comprised of between 5 and 15 bands, the basic social unit. There were five bands within the Big River territory, with the Highland Lakes part of the range of the Aboriginal Lairmairenner band.

The Big River people were a midland group with much of their territory over 600 m above sea level. There is no coastline, but several lakes (with approximately 240 km of shoreline) and a number of river banks. The concentration of activity is believed to be on lake shores (particularly Great Lake, Lake Echo and Arthur Lakes) and along the rivers that connected the lakes to the River Derwent.

Little is known of the Big River Tribes seasonal movements, except they had a co- operative arrangement with some of the Oyster Bay bands to forage in each others territory. Almost all tribes gained coastal and / or inland access to one another’s territory by agreement.

Summer visits to the Big River country were common for the Oyster Bay people, who were known to move west through St Peters Pass to Blackmans River hunting and firing the bush for game and also to the Clyde and Ouse river valleys.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 5

Typically they travelled along well defined routes usually along the borders of territories, the attraction was the Eucalyptus gunii and the extensive hunting grounds of the Greta Lake, Clyde and Ouse river valleys. The North West and North people were also known to visit the Big River country for trade.

Interestingly, the Big River people were the only Aborigines to have regular access to both the east and west coasts.

European Settlement Thomas Toombs, kangaroo shooter, discovered Great Lake in 1815, with the first ‘official’ journey to Great Lake by John Beamont in 1817. In the 1820s surveyors working for the Land Diemen’s Land Company and colonial government traversed the Plateau searching for suitable land. The extension of the wool industry, native grasses and cheap convict labour resulted in the Plateau being opened up to pastoralists in the 1820s and by Federation it was firmly entrenched as the main economic activity.

The Lake Highway was not built particularly early. In 1847 James Calder remarked that although the track to the Great Lake was unmade it was fenced all the way. By 1866 the road from Bothwell to Shannon and the Great Lake had been formed and metalled.

The Plateau attracted scientists and artists from the 1830s. The first trout fry were released into Great Lake in 1870, subsequently attracting mainly wealthy fishing and tourism visitors. The construction of an accommodation house at Swan Bay made Great Lake a focus for anglers and by the late 19th century this was one of three accommodation house on the Plateau, the others being at Interlaken and the Steppes. By 1967 widespread motor vehicle ownership and improved roads saw the transformation of the landscape and greater angler usage patterns with construction of numerous shacks.

Hydro Development In 1914 the State Government set up the Hydro-Electric Department which later became the Hydro Electric Commission (HEC) in order to construct the first HEC power station, at Waddamana. Prior to that two private hydro-electric stations had been opened. The Launceston City Council's Duck Reach Power Station, opened 1895 on the South Esk River (it was the first hydro-electric power station in the southern hemisphere) and the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Company's Lake Margaret Power Station, opened in 1914. Both these power stations where taken over by the HEC and closed in 1955 and 2006 respectively.[11]

Following the Second World War - in the 1940s and early 1950s, many migrants came to Tasmania to work for the HEC on dam, power and sub station construction. During this period, most construction was concentrated in the Highland Lakes area, moving west and south west as the choice of rivers and catchments in the Central Highlands were exhausted. For the Highland Lakes area this resulted in huge changes to the landscape and lakes of the highlands with new lakes created, smaller lakes significantly enlarged, roads created, new towns, dams and power stations constructed, and large transmission lines crossing the landscape. Much of that infrastructure is still being utilised although some of the older power stations, have closed and the Hydro towns such as Bronte Park, Wyatinah, Waddamana and Tarraleah are highly diminished in terms of size and services now available. The Hydro legacy also includes many fishing lakes, boat ramps and access roads to lakes and camp grounds.

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro_Tasmania#cite_note-0#cite_note-0Waddamana

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 6

Today Hydro Tasmania, as it is now called, produces 10,000GWh’s of electricity from 28 power stations, of which ten are located either in, or in the vicinity of the Highland Lakes area. They also control numerous lakes and 50 large dams. 2

Shack Settlements Outside of the Hydro towns and infrastructure the other form of residential settlement to occur in the Highland Lakes area has been driven by fishing. The vast majority of the small settlements dotted around the various lakes originated as clusters of fishing shacks, usually located on Crown land and on an annual lease. In the mid 1990’s following on from an investigation into how all of Tasmania’s public lands are categorised and a rationalisation of the number of reserve categories, the State government commenced a program to assess all of the shacks on Crown land around the State. All of the shacks have been assessed as to their suitability for freehold title and subject to Aboriginal heritage, environmental and infrastructure considerations, the majority of them now have freehold title. The Shacks Site Categorisation Project resulted in hundreds of existing shacks being given freehold title, at settlements such as Brady’s Lake, Brandum Bay, Breona, Bronte Lagoon, Dee Lagoon, Doctors Point, Interlaken, Little Pine Lagoon, Reynolds Neck and Tods Corner. Section 5.1 of this report discusses the Shack Site Categorisation Project in more detail.

4.3 Demographics The Highland Lakes area is not identified as a region in its own right by many government data collection agencies, thus gathering statistics relevant to the area under study, is difficult. The remainder of section 4 of this report discusses the demographics for the Central Highlands municipal area as a whole. Where possible some data specific to settlements within the Highland Lakes area, has been used, in order to give a picture of how it differs from the wider municipal area. Much of the data is taken from the demographic analysis conducted for the Central Highlands area as part of the wider JLUPI Settlement Strategy.

4.3.1 Central Highlands Municipal Area Central Highlands’ population of 2316 is the 3rd smallest of the 29 Local Government Areas (LGA’s) in Tasmania. Central Highlands’ population remained unchanged from 2001 to 2006, compared with State growth over this period of 3.8 per cent. Central Highlands’ stable population was the result of a net migration loss of 64 persons and a natural increase (the difference between births and deaths) of 64 persons. Table 1 highlights the key demographic characteristics for the total municipal area.

30 June 2001 30 June 2006 Population 2316 2316 Share of State Population 0.49% 0.47% Median Age 39.8 42.9 Fertility Rate 2.31 3.05 Components of Change – 30 June 2001 to 30 June 2006 Births Deaths Net Migration 150 86 -64

Table 1 - Central Highlands Municipality – Demographic Change from 2001 to 2006

2 http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corporate/Generating_Power/

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 7

4.4 Demographic Drivers In 2006, the highest numbers of people were in the age range 50-59 years, followed by people aged 40-49 years. More people live in the southern part of the Central Highlands3 with greatest concentration of people in Bothwell, Ellendale, Hamilton, Gretna, Wayatinah, Ouse and Miena respectively. The highest numbers of people aged 75 years and over live in Bothwell, followed by Ellendale and Wayatinah.

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5 s n n n - - rt ia l ds y y o n a nd e e r ba gio l l ht l l an la l nt a a uther h d i sma Ho o Re r A B Brig Ce t V t V y M S e Ta Hig n n t Pt Pt e e ud ea w w St r r e e Gr D D

Figure 2 - Average Annual Population Change 2003-2008

Source: ABS Estimated Resident Population (Derwent Valley Pt A includes New Norfolk area) The median age of the population in the Central Highlands continues to increase, mirroring trends in Tasmania and across Australia. However as Table 2 shows the Central Highlands is exhibiting a higher median age than many other municipal areas, with a median age of 43 years in 2006.

1996 2001 2006 Brighton 26 29 31 Central Highlands 35 39 43 Derwent Valley 33 36 38 Southern Midlands 35 36 39 Tasmania 34 36 38

Table 2 - Median Age (Years) 1996-2006

3 http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/31408/Final_report_Tas.pdf

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 8

The age structure of the Central Highlands population reflects a highly aged (and ageing) population. This age structure has continued to be characterised by a declining share of younger people and a growth in both the proportion and overall number of people in older population age groups, in spite of overall population decline.

85+

80-84

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

34-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

150 100 50 0 50 100 150

Male Female

Figure 3 - Age Structure (Central Highlands) 2006

-2

-4

-6

-8 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 0- 5------85+ 10 15 20 25 30 34 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Figure 4 - Average Annual Change by Age Group (Central Highlands) 1996-2006

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 9

Since 1991 the population of the Central Highlands council area has declined. Between 1991 and 2001 this decline was particularly severe, but between 2001 and 2006 it steadied considerably. The low growth scenario suggests that the decline could continue, the medium growth scenario suggests that the decline would continue gently at 2001-2006 rates and the high growth scenario projects a recovery and a steady increase.

SCENARIO 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 HIGH 2,969 2,504 2,288 2,241 2,302 2,354 2,402 2,451 MEDIUM 2,969 2,504 2,288 2,241 2,247 2,245 2,233 2,219 LOW 2,969 2,504 2,288 2,241 2,192 2,135 2,063 1,994

Table 3 - Growth Scenarios for the Central Highlands Municipal Area

Note: The 2006 population figure (from JLUPI data ) is 75 persons less than the figure in the Demographic Change Advisory Council Report. As both sets of figures were derived from ABS Census data, the reason for this discrepancy is unknown.

Declining average household sizes (and increasing median ages) are typical in the towns and settlements throughout the Central Highlands, including the Highland Lakes area. Table 3 compares a number of settlements and the figures highlight that the Lakes area has an even higher median age and generally lower household size.

The figures and tables highlight the acute issue of the ageing structure of both the Central Highlands population and the Highland Lakes area. For example, in communities such as Ouse and Miena, the median age at 2006 was over 50 years and over 10% of the population was aged over 65 years. Average household sizes are low in these communities and others with older age structures, and these localities are characterised by high numbers of lone person households, especially single, older people.

Median Age Average % Over 65 SEIFA Disadvantage (Years) Household Size Years (National Deciles) Central Highlands Council Area Bothwell 41 2.4 11.0 2 Ellendale 41 2.5 9.2 1 Gretna 35 2.7 3.9 1 Hamilton 38 2.5 6.7 1 Ouse 51 2.1 15.9 1 Highland Lakes Area Miena 53 1.8 10.4 1 Dee 53 1.9 7.7 1 Wayatinah 41 2.1 1.8 1

Table 4 - Selected Population Characteristics (ABS “State Suburbs”)

Source: Census 2006 State Suburb (Districts), SEIFA Deciles compared to all Australia (1 = lowest, 10 = highest) Data for these communities is presented at the ABS “State Suburb” level which includes an area more extensive than immediate township areas and often correlates to postcode boundaries.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 10

The ABS Socio-economic index (SEIFA) indicates that a number of these localities are amongst the most disadvantaged in Australia – specifically those within the 1st and 2nd deciles (lowest 20%) of all localities in the nation. This index draws together a range of indicators including those relating to income, employment and education attainment. Many of these communities are characterised by high rates of unemployment as well as low labour force participation rates (the proportion of those 15-65 years engaged in or seeking employment) and comparatively low household incomes.

Unemployment Labour Force Suburb Population Rate (%) Participation % Central Highlands Council Area Bothwell 555 1.2 53.3 Ellendale 476 11.8 43.6 Gretna 256 9.0 52.6 Hamilton 300 5.8 58.3 Ouse 138 11.1 45.4 Highland Lakes Area Miena 106 8.3 36.4 Dee 117 5.7 47.8 Wayatinah 168 6.8 59.5

Table 5 - Employment Rates and Labour Force Participation

These population characteristics depict some variation within the municipality, but overall indicate a general trend of older population and low labour force participation rates, as well as pockets of very high unemployment.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 11

5. Key Issues for the Highland Lakes The key issues for the Highland Lakes are highlighted in the remainder of this section of the report. The recommendations are aimed at managing future development in the area, protecting the natural values of the area and promoting its assets and potential.

5.1 Protection of the Lakes Natural Values The importance of the general environment and for the Highland Lakes – the 4000 odd lakes in the area, must be recognised as the most critical issue for any strategy that seeks to manage this area. The lakes are the unique feature of this area. Their health is what the local economy and most residents and visitor lifestyle is centred on. These assets must be protected for the value they contribute to the lifestyle of residents and the regional economy and for their intrinsic value.

Hydro power and its associated infrastructure is dependent on healthy lake levels, the fishing industry is dependent on healthy lakes, the vast majority of shack owners choose to have a shack here because of the good fishing and beautiful environment. Agriculture is increasingly becoming reliant on waters from the lakes.

The loss of a lakes health and what that does to both the environment, the industry dependent on it and the settlements nearby is evident from the condition of Lakes Sorell and Crescent and its nearby settlement of Interlaken. Once the premier fishing lakes in the region, low rainfall reduced them to critical levels. This along with the discovery of carp forced their closure for fishing and has threatened both the viability of the RAMSAR listed wetland and the threatened native galaxia fish. Interlaken as a result has become an underutilised settlement, and the camping and other facilities are deteriorating and rarely utilised. In discussion with Inland Fisheries personnel it was stated that it could take 10 years or more for the lakes to fully regain their original health.

The experiences of Lakes Sorell and Crescent are an important lesson, particularly if drying trends become more the norm. The lakes serve a multitude of purposes for a wide variety of people and organisations. This requires complex management to ensure that competing needs are balanced and when lake levels are high this can all work well. However if lake levels drop then the health of the lakes will also drop and the management task becomes even more complex. Fundamentally if the lakes decline in health so will the whole Highland Lakes area –its environment, its settlements and its people. Hence the critical issue of this strategy is to aim to ensure growth opportunities are recognised and taken advantage of, but always keeping in mind the need to ensure lake quality and health is not undermined and the environmental qualities and character of the area are maintained.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 12

5.2 Shack Development around the Lakes.

5.2.1 History of Shack Development Outside of the Hydro developed settlements, the overwhelming number of settlements in the Highland Lakes have originated as informal shack settlements. The history of this form of settlement is well described in the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts Committee, November 2008. Section 4 of that report states;

‘HISTORY OF SHACKS ON CROWN LANDS The first shacks were constructed on Crown Land around 1944 and leased to the occupier. They had variously been described as having a unique character of construction and were part of the rich history and integral part of a way of life for many Tasmanians. Shacks were located in pockets all around the state but principally at relatively isolated beach areas and fishing spots in the Central Highlands. The shacks were built without regard to any planning or any environmental concerns. Land areas were not clearly defined or of standard size; water and effluent treatment was haphazard and of growing environmental concern; and road and access infrastructure was poor or ill defined. Owners had no security of tenure and leased on a year to year basis.

There were approximately 1370 shacks on Crown Lands authorised by either an annual licence or a short term lease. Due to the uncertainty of this type of tenure owners were reluctant to improve the shacks and few shacks complied with modern environmental and building standards.

Shack owners had petitioned governments for over 15 years and successive governments since the mid eighties had made various attempts to resolve issues associated with the shacks however progress was slow. A review of the program which was administered by the Hydro Electric Commission and the Department of Environment and Land Management found that the existing processes were inconsistent, cumbersome and frustrating, and there were serious funding limitations. A major impediment was the strict requirements of the Resource Management and Planning Tribunal of Tasmania (RMPAT). The Review identified three major issues which needed to be addressed before changes could be made. They were the environmental problems, a new assessment process and special legislation to facilitate the planning difficulties in converting shack tenures.

In 1997 the Government of the day decided to do something about the situation. The Leader for the Government in the Legislative Council Mr Tony Fletcher MLC was asked, in conjunction with the Department, who had been working on the problem for some time, to plan, determine and devise a process which would regularise the land areas and provide basic infrastructure, give some certainty to occupiers of the shacks who had an unsatisfactory year-to-year lease arrangements and address the growing environmental concerns.

The solution chosen was a combination whereby some shacks in sensitive areas or unsuitable for conversion to freehold would be removed, some would remain under conditional lease and others would be sold freehold to existing occupiers/tenants. Quite clearly the intention allowed for most shack owners to be able to purchase their own shack sites. An important and necessary part of the process would be to provide solutions to the serious infrastructure and environmental issues associated with the shack occupancy’.4

4 Parliament of Tasmania, 2008: Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts, ‘Administration of the Crown Lands (shack Site) Act, 1997.’

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 13

The Shack Site Categorisation Project occurred across the state and is now virtually complete. For the Highland Lakes it resulted in approximately 741 shacks gaining freehold titles around many of the lakes. It also resulted in substantial costs for many shack holders as new domestic sewerage systems and upgraded access roads were often required as part of the transfer to freehold title. As no publically available final report has been produced by the Shack Site Categorisation Project it is difficult to estimate the exact number of freehold titles created under the program, but the report from the Public Accounts committee is probably the most accurate. For the Highland Lakes area the bulk of the assessment and conversions occurred in the early 2000’s.

Based on data from the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Public Accounts Committee, November 2008, the following table was compiled in relation to shacks in the Central Highlands area – all of which are located in the Highland Lakes.

Shack Site Location Number of shacks Bradys Lake 119 Bronte Lagoon 21 Cramps Bay 44 Dee North 11 Dee South 8 Flintstone Drive 116 Great Lake 379* Interlaken 12 Little Pine Lagoon 9 Tods Corner 22

Total 741

Table 6 - Location and Number of shacks assessed under the Shacks Site Categorisation Program

*The figure for Great Lake appears to combine a number of the smaller settlements such as Breona, Reynolds Neck, Doctors Point, and Liawenee together.

5.2.2 Seasonal Nature of Shack Settlement The seasonal nature of shack occupation creates unique challenges in terms of creating viable settlements and communities in the Highland Lakes. Firstly it makes it extremely difficult to estimate just what is the ‘holiday season’ and ‘off season’ population of the various settlements. This in turn makes it very difficult to manage services and gain an understanding of the servicing requirements for the settlements, in relation to sewerage, water and waste management, as well as the broader range of social and community services and facilities.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 14

Given that 741 shacks were granted title under the Shack Site Categorisation Project and the data is as compiled for the Nov 2008 Public Accounts Committee report, this is likely to be the most up to date and accurate figure available in relation to the number of shacks now existing in many of the settlements. Data was also obtained from the Central Highlands Council’s building applications register in order to determine how many additional lots have been created in the Highland Lakes area, other than via the Shack Site Categorisation Project. However the register data does not differentiate between applications received due to a title being created as a result of the Shacks Site Project and a lot being created independent of the Shacks Site Project.

Place Approximate Number of New Lots Created Arthurs Lake 286 Bradys Lake 1 Bronte Park 21 Dee Lagoon 12 Derwent Bridge 1 Great Lake 37 Hermitage 1 Interlaken 1 Liawenee 1 Little Pine Lagoon 4 London Lakes 43 Miena 133 Morass Bay 1 Penstock Lagoon 7 Tarraleah 6 Tods Corner 25 Waddamana 2 Wayatinah 77 Wilburville 28 Total 688

Table 7 - Lot creation in the Highland Lakes Area from 1997 to April 2009, based on Central Highlands Council records

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 15

Approximate Number of New Lots Created

350

300

250

200

150

100

0 k e r a n e h e n s e a e y n h e l r l g e ge a e en i a a a n k k v d n en e i t i r l r i t B a goo a r goo ene Pa goo l Lak Lak o u s Lak a r Mi m s e s s t y rra r t B y daman C n L La a aw La n La ur i eat n r d k r o e h Inte L Ta Wilb e He c t ad a Wa ne e i G r r ods o ndo w Br Mo t W D r A B T P Lo e l t ens De t P Li

Figure 5 - Lots created, between 1997 and April 2009, based on Central Highlands Council records

As Table 7 indicates, 688 lots were created in the various settlements in the Highland Lakes area from 1997 to April 2009 (based on Council data). The bulk of these lots were created in Miena (133) and at Arthurs Lake (286) – mainly around Flintstone (245). It is reasonable to assume that the majority of the lots at Flintstone as well as most of the other settlements included in the Shacks Site Project figures have been created due to the Shack Sites project. Subdivisions that appear to be separate to the Shacks Site Project are a 77 lot subdivision approved at Wayatinah and 133 lots created at Miena.

The data extracted from the Central Highlands Council application register should be treated with caution. Data has been entered inconsistently so some interpretation of the data was required. This interpretation is likely to have led to some degree of inaccuracy. However on the basis of the Public Accounts Report as well as the Council records, it seems reasonable to assume that the number of shacks now existing in the Highlands Lakes area is in the region of 741 shacks created under the Shacks Site Project, plus 78 at Wyatinah plus 133 at Miena, giving a total of 952 shacks.

Given that a peak holiday season population for the Highland Lakes area is likely to be under 2000 persons, based on the analysis as described, the winter population is likely to be significantly less than this. The Athena Waste Management report detailed in section 5.3.4 of this report estimates the static population for a number of the settlements in the Lakes area. Their estimates give a total static population of almost 600 but doesn’t include a figure for the static population for Miena, thus the figure is more likely to be a bit higher and may be in the region of 700 persons. Gaining an accurate figure for the winter population is hard to achieve but what is known is that maintaining services and a sense of community with such fluctuating population numbers is a real challenge for both the residents and government agencies (at all levels of government) responsible for service provision.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 16

5.3 Infrastructure Provision As described in the previous section the dispersed population and seasonal variations make the provision of infrastructure a challenge. The following is a brief synopsis of the key infrastructure services currently in place;

5.3.1 Roads Two main roads give access to the Highland Lakes – the Lake Highway more often referred to as the Highland Lakes Road runs from Bothwell to the Great Lake and along the western shore of the lake and on to Deloraine. The Marlborough Road connects the Great Lake area to the Lyall Highway at Bronte. The Marlborough Road is unsealed for much of its length through the Highland Lakes while the Highland Lakes Road runs along the western shore of Great Lake and is a gravel road with intermittent bitumen between shack settlements. From after Hawley hill to Deloraine the road is sealed. Arthurs Lake is accessed by the sealed Arthurs Lake Road which joins the Poatina Road. The other highway in the area is the Lyell Highway taking visitors via Derwent Bridge to the West Coast.

The bulk of the remaining roads in the area are unsealed and are either the responsibility of the Central Highlands Council to maintain them or they may be owned by organisations such as Forestry Tasmania or a Hydro Tasmania access road.

5.3.2 Water The vast majority of shack settlements in the Highland Lakes area do not have reticulated water. The only settlement with water reticulation (based on 2006 data obtained during the JLUPI Phase 1 project) is Wayatinah, which has 55 connections, 134 Ml capacity, and 9 Ml current usage

5.3.3 Sewerage The bulk of the settlements in the Highland Lakes area have domestic waste water treatment systems – either septic tanks or aerated waste water treatment systems (AWTS). Settlements with full or partial reticulation, based on 2006 data, are: • Bronte Park – 13 connections, 65kl capacity, 65kl current demand. (Currently the system has capacity for 11 more lots to be connected, based on a council letter on file in relation to the existing treatment plant). • Flintstone – 98 connections, 32 850Kl capacity, 27,375 current demand.

5.3.4 Waste Management The Central Highlands Council recently commissioned Athena Waste Management to conduct an assessment of the existing Waste Transfer Stations in the municipality. A number of these were located in the Highland Lakes area. • The sites were assessed and a recommendation made on each of them as follows: • The Arthurs Lake Waste Transfer Station – serves Arthurs Lake area including Flintstone, Wilburville, Morass Bay. Estimated static population 80. Minor upgrades recommended. • Brady’s Lake Waste Transfer Station – serves static population of 20. Poor condition. Waste report recommended either significant upgrade or closure. • Breona Waste Transfer Station, Marlborough Highway. Serves the immediate Breona community. Poor condition. Report recommended either significant upgrade or closure.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 17

• Bronte Park Waste Transfer Station, Bronte Park Rd. Serves the districts of Bronte Park, London Lakes, Bronte Lagoon. Estimated static population 30 but significantly larger in the holiday periods. Report recommended some operational improvements. • Cramps Bay Waste Transfer Station, Cramps Bay Road. Estimated static population served is 50. Report recommended the site had capacity for expansion. • Derwent Bridge Waste Transfer Station, Lyell Highway. Serves 7 houses plus holiday accommodation, hotel, service station and the Lake St Claire National Park. Waste report recommended either significant upgrade or closure. • Interlaken Waste Transfer Station, Dennistoun Rd. Serves the Interlaken, and Lakes Sorell and Crescent districts with an estimated static population of 150. Report recommended some operational improvements. • Miena Waste Transfer Station, Lakes Highway. Serves the districts of Miena, Tods Corner, Little Pine and Steppes. Report recommended consideration for future expansion. • Osterley Waste Transfer Station, McGuires Rd. Serves the districts of Osterley, Dee Lagoon and Strickland, with an estimated static population of 150. Report recommended some operational improvements. • Creek area and is only 10km from Breona Waste Transfer Station. Report recommended either significant upgrade or closure. • Wayatinah Waste Transfer Station, Power Station Rd. Serves the Wyatinah district with an estimated population of 100. Report recommended some operation improvements.

Following acceptance of the report by Council the recommendations relating to closures have been followed. Today the Highland Lakes area has three waste transfer stations operating - Bronte Park, Arthurs Lake and Miena. Miena also has a recycling facility.

5.3.5 Boat ramps Given the critical importance of fishing to the Highland Lakes, accessible boat ramps are part of the essential infrastructure of the area. The following table, produced by Inland Fisheries, lists the boat ramps on all of the Hydro lakes and the level of ‘effort’ anglers experience at each lake. The angler ‘effort’ is associated with stocking rates and importance of the water for anglers - the lower the number the higher the importance.

The table is a useful indicator of the popularity of lakes and the level of demand for use of the boat ramps, indicating where additional facilities may be needed. The limitation of the data is that the figures are aggregated for each lake and don’t give information on the level of use for each boat ramp.

Lake Boat ramp locations IFS effort (estimated IFS ranking number of anglers (based on using) effort) Lake McKenzie Northern side of Dam 188 45 Lake Repulse Broad River 264 38 Wayatinah Lagoon Intake 414 29 Lake King William Butlers Gorge 414 28 Lake Echo Large Bay 792 16

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 18

Lake Boat ramp locations IFS effort (estimated IFS ranking number of anglers (based on using) effort) Middle Echo Dam Wall Pine Tier Lagoon 603 21 Arthurs Lake Jonah Bay 8449 1 Pumphouse Bay Dam Wall Great Lake Brandum Bay 5393 2 Swan Bay Tods Corner Haddens Bay Cramps Bay Poatina Intake Boundary Bay (only place on Great Lake where low lake level access is possible, although not from the boat ramp.) Lake Burbury Darwin Dam 1207 10 Thureau Hills Campground Lake Rosebery Tullah 301 34 Jetty Ski club Lake Mackintosh Dam 339 31 Lake Plimsoll Dam 75 87 Tungatinah 716 18 Lagoon Lake Binney 1093 13 Bradys Lake Whitewater 2527 7 Shack boatramp Bronte Lagoon Dam Wall 2062 6 Woodwards Canal Surveyors Monument Village Boat Ramp Dee Lagoon Spillway Bay 1207 12 Brownie Bay Paton Bay

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 19

Lake Boat ramp locations IFS effort (estimated IFS ranking number of anglers (based on using) effort) Little Pine Lagoon Monpeelyata Canal 3470 4 Woods Lake 2829 5 Lake St Clair Cynthia Bay 716 17 Penstock Lagoon Boatramp 3658 3 Lake Pedder Serpentine Dam 452 26 Teds Beach Mcpartlan Pass Scotts Peak boat ramp Edgar Dam boat ramp Tea Tree Cove Lake Augusta 528 23 Lake Catagunyah Power Station 113 57 Lake Pieman Reece Dam 0 169 Lake Parangana 75 86 Lake Cethana Dam boat ramp 113 58 Lorinna boat ramp Lake Rowallan Dam Wall 452 27 250 M North of Dam Wall Lake Gairdiner End of access road 113 60 Lake Gordon Gordon Intake 102 37

Table 8 - Hydro Lakes and associated Boat Ramps, ranked by popularity with anglers

5.3.6 Camping Facilities There are 18 recognised camping sites in the Highland Lakes area with the following services and facilities.

Location Responsible Agency Facilities Arthurs Lake P&W Camp/Van site, Boat ramp, (Pumphouse Bay) Water, Toilets, Showers, Fees, Staff on site.

Camp/Van site, Boat ramp, P&W Water, Toilets, Fees, Ranger (Jonah patrolled Bay) Brady’s Lake Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Bronte Lagoon Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lake St.Claire – P&W Camp/Van site, Water, Cynthia Bay Toilets, Showers, Fees,

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 20

Location Responsible Agency Facilities Ranger patrolled Lake Binney Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lake King William P&W Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Laughing Jack Lagoon Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lagoon of Islands Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lake Parangana Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lake Rowallan Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp Lake Sorell (Silver P&W Camp/Van site, Boat ramp, Plains) Water, Toilets, Fees, Ranger patrolled.

Camp/Van site, Boat ramp, P&W Water, Toilets, Fees, Ranger (Dago patrolled. Point) Liffey Falls State P&W Camp/Van site, Toilets Reserve Little Pine Lagoon P&W Camp/Van site, Boat ramp, Lakeside Reserve Toilets, Fees, Walls of Jerusalem P&W Camp, Toilets, Water Nat Pk Woods Lake Hydro Camp/Van site, Boat ramp Wayatinah Lagoon Hydro Camp/Van site , Boat ramp (Lakeside Caravan Water, Toilets, Showers, Park) Camping Fees, Staff on site

Table 9 - Camp sites and Facilities in the Highland Lakes area

Source; Craig Lewis and Cathy savage, 2008. Camping guide to Tasmania

5.4 Agencies with Land and Water Management Responsibilities The issue of the large number of government agencies with overlapping responsibilities has been raised in both previous reports about the area and during the community consultation.

The Central Highland Council is responsible for land use planning, building approvals and the provisions of local services.

Hydro Tasmania is responsible for the management of many of the lakes such as Great Lake and Arthurs Lake, as well as the chain of smaller Hydro created lakes. They are responsible for the lake water levels and the water quality. They are responsible for the provision and maintenance of boat ramps and control the immediate riparian areas around the Hydro controlled lakes, as well as some camp sites. They are also responsible for all of the Hydro power infrastructure in the area.

Inland Fisheries have responsibility for maintaining viable fisheries in the Highland Lakes and for promoting the fishing industry especially as a wild trout fishery.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 21

The Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and the Environment (DPIPWE) are responsible for the Conservation and World Heritage areas and for flora and fauna management in the area, including aquatic flora and fauna, but not the brown trout.

Marine and Safety Tasmania (MAST) is responsible for ensuring boating infrastructure such as boat ramps and pontoons are provided and maintained in safe condition.

Forestry Tasmania has significant plantation and native forest resources in the area and is responsible for the care and management of them.

This abbreviated list of government agencies with land management and/or lake management responsibilities illustrates how they have different responsibilities, but also how they often overlap. For example, Inland Fisheries must maintain a healthy trout fishery but does not control lake water levels or water quality. Therefore it must work in close cooperation with Hydro Tasmania to ensure its core business of maintaining the trout fishery is considered when Hydro is making decisions regarding water levels.

In addition to these agencies there are a number of other government agencies with a lesser level of involvement in the Lakes area, various community groups and a multitude of recreational groups – anglers, walkers, hunters, who all have a stake in how the area is used and managed and who are represented on a variety of organisations and committees.

5.5 Land Use Issues

5.5.1 Current Planning Scheme Controls The current planning scheme, which governs land use and development in the Highland Lakes area is the Central Highlands Council Planning Scheme, 1998. The most relevant sections of the current scheme to the Highland Lakes are Section 2.1 – the General Objectives of the Scheme, Section 2.2 the Specific Objectives of the Scheme and the specific zoning provisions relating to the Holiday Residential zone and the Rural Zone as follows:

2.1 General Objectives of the Planning Scheme are:- (a) To promote the sustainable development of natural and physical resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity; (b) To provide for the fair, orderly and sustainable use and development of air,land and water; (c) To encourage public involvement in resource management and planning; (d) To encourage economic development in accordance with the objectives listed above; (e) To give effect to the relevant objectives of the Central Plateau, Midlands and Southern Midlands Strategic Plan and the Central Highlands Council Strategic Plan which are as follows:- (i) To encourage sustainable long term use of appropriate areas for agricultural, pastoral and forestry activities. (ii) To strengthen the commercial and tourist roles of the existing townships and create an appropriate network of settlements to meet the needs of residents and visitors. (iii) To conserve significant vegetation, habitat and scenic resources. (iv) To encourage land use and development to occur in consideration of land capability. (v) To maintain recreational values, including the wild fishery, and to expand opportunities for resource-related tourism.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 22

(vi) To protect places of cultural significance, and (vii) To reinforce the role of the area as a major water catchment for the generation of hydro-electric power, domestic water supply and irrigation.

2.2 Specific Objectives of the Planning Scheme are:- (a) To consolidate urban development and promote as main urban centres - Bothwell, Hamilton, Miena, Ouse and Wayatinah and to provide for their growth through the orderly provision of urban services. (b) To encourage diverse uses and to foster the broadening of the economy of the Council area and of the region. (c) To identify, protect and enhance the historic heritage of Bothwell and Hamilton. (d) To encourage local service centres at Arthurs Lake Road, Derwent Bridge,Ellendale and Gretna. (e) To encourage infilling and consolidation of development at Barren Tier, Bronte Park, Cramps Bay, Flintstone Drive, Gin Point, Headlam Road, Laycock Drive, London Lakes, Miena, Morass Bay, Shannon, Tarraleah, Tods Corner, Waddamana and Wilburville in accordance with the Holiday Residential zoning. (f) To provide for a limited area of rural residential uses at Ellendale, Fentonbury and Westerway. (g) To limit any growth in the informal settlements at Alanvale, Bradys Lake, Brandum Bay, Breona, Bronte Lagoon, Cramps Bay, Dago Point, Dee, DeeLagoon, Doctors Point, Gin Point, Interlaken, Lagoon of Islands, Penstock Lagoon, Reynolds Neck and land in other areas (until their future is considered in detail and the requirements set out in Part 7 are satisfied) by categorising them as "Settlement Investigation Areas". (h) To prevent further development in the informal settlements of Alma Tier, Apsley, Little Pine Lagoon, Northeast Lake Sorell and Diamond Bay (Lake Sorell). (i) To prevent further subdivision in the informal settlements of Barren Tier, Morass Bay, Osterley, Pelham, Shannon, Strickland and Wilburville. (j) To encourage the use of Meadowbank Lake and surrounding lands for recreation and tourism. (k) To identify the need for organised, serviced caravan park and camping grounds in lakeside and other locations.

The objectives of the Holiday Residential Zone are:

(a) To recognise the special requirements of holiday residential development in Alanvale, Allisons Road, Barren Tier, Bradys Lake, Brandum Bay, Bronte Lagoon, Bronte Park, Brownie Bay, Cramps Bay, Doctors Point, Dee Lagoon, Flintstone Drive, Gin Point, Haulage Hill, Headlam Road, Interlaken, Jillet Road, Johnstones Road, Laycock Drive, Little Pine Lagoon, London Lakes, Miena, Morass Bay, Rainbow Road, Reynolds Neck, Shannon, South Breona, Tarraleah, Tods Corner, Tods Corner (Gin Point), Waddamana, Warners Road and Wilburville where the demand is primarily for holiday, recreational or specialist educational activities. (b) To consolidate housing development for holiday and recreational purposes in appropriate areas. (c) To facilitate the effective and efficient provision of services by Council and other authorities. (d) To ensure that development is consistent with the character, requirements and natural environment of holiday recreation areas. (e) To control adverse impacts and to restrict interference from incompatible activities.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 23

"E" (exempt) - home occupation or as listed in Schedule 2. 3. "P" (permitted) - home industry, house, visitor accommodation (1 unit only), utility (minor). 4. "D" (discretionary) - caravan park, community facility, consulting rooms, educational establishment, entertainment facility, garden centre, hotel, recreation facility, shop, subdivisions (which comply with the standards in item 5 and 6 below, and all other relevant provisions of this Scheme), utility (major), visitor accommodation. 5. "X" (prohibited) - all others not listed in items 2, 3 or 4 above. Development is prohibited if the land is not suitable by reason of access, the need for excessive tree clearing, fire safety or other relevant circumstances. For these reasons, minimum lot areas and their configuration cannot be identified without consultation with, and assessment by, Council in each case. Development is prohibited unless treatment and disposal of sewage and sullage can be provided to Council’s satisfaction.

Development Standards: Subdivision must not result in a change of use without the approval of Council (if required) and must not provide for additional direct access to any road of Category 2 or 3 listed in Schedule 3. Council shall consult with the Tasmanian Fire Service regarding subdivisions and new buildings on existing lots, and may impose any conditions arising therefrom. Maximum plot ratio - 45%. Building height - maximum eight metres. Roof pitch - no flatter than 22.5 degrees. Front setback - no less than eight metres or as specified in Schedule 3 – whichever is the greater. Side and rear setbacks - one metre setback for walls up to three metres high, plus 300 mm for each metre of wall height over three metres. Council may approve, subject to conditions if relevant, buildings built to side or rear boundaries on an existing sub-minimal lot. Lot boundaries are not to be fenced. Appearance - buildings are to be sited and designed to respect their setting; the materials and colours of the outer walls and roof are to blend with the surrounding environment. Preference is to be given to natural stone and timber but any material finished or painted in natural earth matt colours such as fawn, mid-browns, muted greens and blues, or greys may be acceptable. Council may impose conditions to ensure that the appearance of any building meets the above requirements. Development should be designed and sited in such a way as to maximise the retention of existing native vegetation. An application for a permit shall include a plan of any vegetation to be cleared. The clearing of land and any site works shall be limited to the area approved Council for a particular development. Owners and occupiers are encouraged to establish native flora and to remove other species. Trees are not to be felled or pruned without the prior approval of the Council. New wells for the purpose of water supply or disposal are not to be constructed without Council approval (which may be refused on considerations such as existing or future pollution, additional effluent disposal, health, safety or others). Council may require existing wells to be removed or filled in as a condition of any planning permit

RURAL ZONE

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 24

1. The objectives of the Rural Zone are: (a) To encourage and facilitate the development of rural land for sustainable long-term agriculture or pastoral activities, and other uses. (b) To protect rural resources from conversion to other uses. (c) To allow for non agricultural activities in locations which will not constrain agricultural or pastoral activities or resources.

"E" (exempted from planning permit) - agriculture, animal establishment, home industry, home occupation or as listed in Schedule 2. 3. "P" (permitted) - feedlot, forestry (in accordance with an approved Timber Harvesting Plan - if applicable), house (on a new lot), rural industry, saleyard, utility (minor), visitor accommodation (1 unit only). 4. "D" (discretionary) - abattoir, aquaculture, bulk store, business premises, caravan park, community facility, consulting rooms, depot, dual occupancy, educational establishment, entertainment facility, extractive industry, forestry (without an approved Timber Harvesting Plan), garden centre, hospital, house on existing lot, industry, institution, light industry, offensive or hazardous industry, recreation facility, research and development facility, restaurant, roadside stall, rural workers dwelling, scrap yard, subdivision, timber mill, transport terminal, utility (major), vehicle workshop, visitor accommodation (more than one unit). 5. "X" (prohibited) - all others not listed in items 2, 3 or 4 above. Development is prohibited unless treatment and disposal of sewage and sullage can be provided to Council’s satisfaction.

Development Standards Subdivisions (a) All new lots shall contain an area of at least 20 hectares. (b) In special circumstances, lots of less than 20 hectares may be approved subject to compliance with: (i) The following aims and objectives: • Prime agricultural land shall be protected from conversion to non- agricultural uses. • Productive agricultural land shall be protected from conversion to non-agricultural uses where it is significant for agriculture and/or for uses related to agriculture. • Prime agricultural land shall only be taken out of agricultural production or out of potential agricultural production where there is an overriding need for the development in terms of public benefit and no other site is suitable for the particular purpose. • Agricultural land shall be managed on a sustainable basis. (ii) Submission of full details of the proposal prepared by a suitably qualified independent agricultural consultant including: • written statement justifying the proposal and giving reasons why compliance with the development standards of the rural zone is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the proposal, and/or would tend to hinder the attainment of the above aims and objectives, • a full report identifying the agricultural capacity of the subject land and balance land, and methods to safeguard the agricultural productivity of both.

The planning scheme also includes requirements to protect riverside, lakeside and wetland areas by requiring a 100 metre setback from the absolute high water mark or full supply level for most of the lakes in the Highland Lakes area.

Part 7 which relates to Settlement Investigation area was established in the planning scheme to give some controls over the shack settlements that were undergoing

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 25

investigation under the Shack Site Categorisation Project. As this is now complete for the Highland Lakes area, this section of the scheme is now some what redundant.

5.5.2 Lot size The Highland Lakes area differs from many other areas in that for many of the settlements, no formal subdivision of them occurred until after dwellings were in place. Normally dwellings are constructed following subdivision. This plus the fact that waste water management has been a critical factor in determining lot size, has resulted in there not really being a minimum lot size set for the Holiday Residential zone. The Central Highlands Planning Scheme has a number of development standards as already described, relating to the Holiday Residential zone but does not have a minimum lots size stated for subdivision in the Holiday Residential zone. An analysis of the larger settlements indicates that the average lot size in Miena is 4687 sq metres, Bronte Park is 3225 sq metres and in Wilburville is 4706 sq metres. In some of the other settlements like Flintstone it is substantially smaller.

Analysis of lot sizes indicates that for the Central Highlands Council area, the majority of lots are in the larger, greater than 40ha category as indicated in Figure 6.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 26

Figure 6 - Lot sizes in the Central Highlands Municipal area

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 27

5.5.3 Land Supply and Demand It is difficult to obtain figures specific to the Highland Lakes. The previous sections analysis indicates the creation of approx 952 shacks with 741 of these from the Shacks Site Project. However, Council data is only available from 1997, with a number of lots created prior to this time – making it difficult to determine with any degree of accuracy what the rate of land release has been. What can be said is that the bulk of the freehold titles created since 1997 have been for existing shacks and as a result of the Shacks Site Project. However Miena has had 133 lots created independent of this project, since 1997 and Wyatinah has had 77 lots created.

The following Figure 7 and 8 are taken from the wider JLUPI report and give an indication of the degree to which new dwellings are being constructed in the Residential or Rural zones within the wider region. For the Highland Lakes area it can be seen that whilst there are a large number of dots representing houses being constructed in the Holiday Residential zone, there are also a significant number of yellow dots indicating houses being constructed in the Rural zone.

Figure 7 - House Construction (Zone) 1989-2009

Rural Agricultural includes ‘Rural’, ‘General Rural’, ‘Rural Forest’; Rural Residential includes ‘Holiday Residential’, ‘Rural Retreat’

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 28

Figure 8 - House Construction (5 year intervals) 1989-2009

5.5.4 Rural Land Use Much of the rural land is forested and not particularly good land compared to lower more fertile lands. The extreme winter weather also makes farming enterprises difficult and limits the crops that can be grown, with summer cattle and sheep grazing the traditional farming activity.

Farming practice in the Lakes area is dominated by large grazing properties. For the future there are potential opportunities for carbon offsets. The current minimum lot size in the rural zoned land of the Highland Lakes is 20 ha, although most lots in the Highland Lakes significantly exceed this minimum. Excessive or uncontrolled subdivision is likely to result in much of the area becoming unviable for any agricultural operations. However, it must also be noted that 20 ha rural living lots do provide a greater choice in lifestyle and may introduce additional people into the Highlands, helping sustain the existing services.

There is no clear obvious minimum lot size that is the best for the Highland Lakes area. Also a minimum lot size will need to be consistent with the rural zoning for the rest of the Municipal area.

The best option may be to protect rural land by a minimum lot size of 100 ha but to allow some rural living areas within the Highland Lakes area, preferably in the general vicinity of the larger service centre towns of Miena and Bronte Park, which are also the two most centrally located within the Highland Lakes area. This would facilitate the future residents of the rural living blocks utilising and supporting the services in those towns. The issue of the most appropriate minimum lot size in the rural parts of the Highland Lakes requires further discussion with key stakeholders and the community before any firm recommendation can be made and translated into a new planning scheme.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 29

6. Opportunities for the Lakes

6.1 Hydro Tasmania infrastructure Substantial land areas in the sub-region are critical to Hydro Tasmania’s operations and are also important to Tasmania’s natural values and economy. The water bodies of the Central Highlands and Derwent Valley contribute 35% of the power generation in the state and provide drinking water to a large proportion of townships and residents in the region including the Greater Hobart area.

The value of these water storages cannot be underestimated as they provide irrigation, drinking water and industrial use, cutting across all major economies that underpin the development of the region.

Hydro Tasmania is the largest freshwater resource manager in Australia. Within the Highland Lakes area they are the most significant land manager, being responsible for much of the lake infrastructure, the lake water quality and lake water levels. They have extensive expertise in planning and management and invest significant resources in managing both the lakes and the adjoining lake shore facilities as a recreational resource as well as a source of hydro power, whilst protecting the health of the lakes.

Hydro Tasmania is also the owner and manager of significant industrial heritage, given the number of power stations and associated infrastructure it has and the age of some of that infrastructure. The Highland Lakes area contains some wonderful examples of this, such as Waddamana power station. The interest in this type of heritage is evidenced by the community reaction when the wooden water pipeline serving Lake Margaret was threatened with removal. A significant niche market exists around visiting the State’s Hydro electricity industrial heritage.

6.2 Fishing The recreational fishing resource of the Highland Lakes is for many the defining characteristic of the area and the critical drawcard for the area. The 2007/08 Inland Fisheries Annual Report summaries well just what the fishery means for both the Highland Lakes and Tasmania in general.

‘The Tasmanian Inland Recreational Fishery (the Fishery) is a highly valued resource of national and international significance. It attracts over 25 000 anglers each year, injecting some $40 M into the State’s economy through tourism alone and is a vital asset for regional communities where other recreational, social and economic opportunities are limited.

A major factor in the success of the Fishery is the suitability of Tasmania’s natural environment with its cool temperate climate, rugged topography and abundance of inland waters; and its subsequent development as a recreational trout fishery for nearly 150 years. Add to this, the State’s unique environmental values, including the areas reserved for conservation and World Heritage, which gives the Fishery a raw, natural appeal to anglers.

A key feature is Tasmania’s world-class wild trout fishery, typically promoted as the experience of ‘wilderness fly fishing’ for challenging wild brown trout in pristine, remote highland waters. This gives the State a significant competitive advantage for the growth of a niche recreational/tourism industry. Importantly, trout fishing produces a high yield product, supports a range of business types and promotes regional development by decentralizing

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 30

spending away from major population centres.’(Inland Fisheries annual Report 2007/08)

The Inland Fisheries service has jurisdiction over all inland waters and has responsibility for managing, protecting and developing the salmon fisheries in inland waters. They compile a lot of data on fishing opportunities and lake condition in relation to salmon fishing and in doing so also promote the Highland Lakes as Australia’s premier wild trout fishery. An example of the promotion they do is the anglers surveys where they survey and release data on the top ten still waters in Tasmania – the bulk of which are in the Highland Lakes area.

Angler Surveys Results from the Angler Postal Survey show that the top ten still waters fished in 2007-08 (in descending order) were Arthurs Lake, Great Lake, Penstock Lagoon, Little Pine Lagoon, Woods Lake, Four Springs Lake, Bronte Lagoon, Bradys Lake, Brushy Lagoon and Meadowbank Lake. The most popular rivers (also in descending order) were Brumbys Creek, River Derwent, the South Esk, Macquarie, Mersey, Huon, Tyenna, Meander and St Patricks rivers and the River Leven. Meanwhile, the highest catch rates for the year were reported at the St Patricks River (3.54), Arthurs Lake (2.98), Woods Lake (2.96), Tyenna River (2.6) and Lake Burbury (1.91).

From Inland Fisheries Annual Report 2007/08

They also survey anglers to asses the boat ramps that are most popular and to gain an understanding of where new infrastructure might be needed. A recent survey of all of the Hydro lakes boat ramps gives useful information to both Hydro, Inland Fisheries and the local council in terms of highlighting the level of usage occurring at the various lakes. The survey results were indicated in Table 8, section 5.3.6 of this report

The Service is one of the key agencies involved in developing fishing related infrastructure in the lakes area. One of the most recent projects has been the improvement of access at Lake Echo by opening the northern end of the lake to boating, through the construction of a 3.5 km road and new concrete boat ramp at Large Bay.

The Service considers the current number of anglers participating in the Fishery is well below the Fishery’s natural carrying capacity and there is room for increased participation without any loss in the fundamental angling experience. Many waters are under-utilised, some are under-performing, and fishing effort has not been distributed evenly throughout the State, with a small number of waters receiving the majority of fishing pressure5.

6.3 Tourism

6.3.1 Natural Based Tourism/Ecotourism The other major economic driver for the region is its natural values, recognised by the number of National Parks and Reserves in the region. The Land Use map in Appendix B illustrates the extent of land under some form of conservation use – land in the control of DPIPWE. These both form the basis for attracting many tourists to the region as well as creating a framework for nature based recreational activities for both visitors and the local population.

5 Inland Fisheries Recreational Management Plan 2008-2018

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 31

The potential of the area for nature based tourism has begun to be recognised with the upgrading of places like Tarraleah providing both upmarket accommodation as well as more affordable holiday units and camping / caravan opportunities. Accommodation is also available at Bronte Park, Miena, Derwent Bridge and Wyatinah, with upmarket accommodation available at London Lakes. Approval has also been recently granted for holiday accommodation and a lodge near Flintstone and a number of B&B approvals have been granted in Miena and a few other settlements. Whilst much of the accommodation in the area is aimed at the fishing market, there is potential to also market to those who wish to do a bit of fishing but also some walking, kayaking, bird watching, mountain biking or just sightseeing.

Camping/caravanning The Tasmanian Visitor Survey (TVS) of December 2008, provides a good insight in to the importance of the camping/caravanning market to Tasmania’s tourist industry;

‘In 2008, 10.9% of all interstate overnight visitors stayed in a caravan park and 7.5% stayed in a tent, caravan or cabin, or camped outside a caravan park. Thirteen per cent (13%) of all interstate leisure visitors stayed in a caravan park and 8.6% stayed in a tent, caravan or cabin, or camped outside a caravan park.

Interstate caravan and holiday park visitation increased from 113,700 in 2004 to 117,300 in 2008, with the majority from Victoria, closely followed by NSW and Queensland. Total visitation excluding cruise ship passengers numbered 897,100.

Of Tasmania’s 121,000 overnight international visitors in 2008, 9.4% stayed in a caravan park in Tasmania and 8.8% stayed in a tent, caravan or cabin, or camped outside a caravan park. Nearly ten per cent (9.8%) of all international overnight leisure visitors (109,000) stayed in a caravan park and 9.2% stayed in a tent, caravan or cabin, or camped outside a caravan park.

Although the national market has been relatively flat since 2000, Tasmania has experienced positive growth. The TVS indicates that interstate caravan and holiday park visitation has increased from113,700 in 2004 to 117,300 in 2008 and caravan and camping spend has risen in the last four years to 2008 from $265m to $316m. In keeping with Tasmania’s domestic market profile, the majority of caravan and camping visitors were from Victoria.’6

The Lebski report on the Tasmanian Caravan and Holiday market describes the states caravan and camping industry as ‘generally comprised of small to medium operations. While some larger, interstate parks are characterized more by a resort-style ambience, this does not typify the local sector, although some businesses are now providing elements of a more sophisticated ‘up market’ experience.’7

In Tasmania most caravan and camping visitors spend as few as two nights in one location. This suggests a focus on amenities and convenience rather than on-site activities.

The Lebski report highlights the competitive advantages Tasmania has in relation to the caravan and camping market: • Accessible wilderness and nature experiences as well as stunning beach locations suitable for ‘freedom camping’; • A climate of four seasons that appeals to the traditional, older market; • Quieter roads with less traffic; • A casual, relaxed lifestyle;

6 Sarah Lebski associates, June 2009 Tasmanian Caravan and Holiday Park Market and Product analysis. 7 Sarah Lebski associates, June 2009 Tasmanian Caravan and Holiday Park Market and Product analysis.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 32

• Diverse experiences within easy driving distance; • A destination that is perceived as relatively safe; • Comparable pricing structures; • Proximity to Victoria which has the largest number of RV owners nation-wide.

Whilst the Highland Lakes climate may be a bit harsh for camping and caravanning in the winter months, it shares all of the other advantages.

The report also found that the provision of appropriate infrastructure is inextricably linked with quality of the visitor experience. It quotes a Western Australian survey that found that the top three general determinants in selecting a caravan park are: 1. Clean toilet and shower facilities 2. A friendly/approachable operator 3. The general appearance of the caravan park.

In terms of factors relating to site preferences of camping v. caravans v. cabins, a powered site was the most popular type of site (84%). The WA survey also included a survey of motor home travelers in terms of their infrastructure requirements and found that: • A dump point – preferably with toilets • A tap to refill fresh water tanks • Good quality visitor information en route • A safe, quiet place to stay overnight, slightly away from the main population are all highly valued, with BBQ facilities considered a bonus.

The 18 campsites in the Highland Lakes area are suitable for both tents and caravans but with a few exceptions have limited facilities and are mainly located and designed to favour the fishing fraternity (close to a boat ramp). Such limited facilities are entirely appropriate for supporting the fishing industry and maintaining the natural character of the area. However in terms of growing the number of visitors attracted to the area and getting them to stop overnight rather than just driving through, some parks in popular locations with some additional facilities are likely to be needed, if the area is to benefit from the increasing number of camper/caravanners.

Wyatinah, Tarraleah and Bronte Park all have camp sites with additional facilities such as water, showers, and cooking facilities. Whilst Miena has a hard stand area for caravans near the lodge, a more attractive site with proper facilities may assist in increasing the numbers of visitors overnighting in the area.

The potential merit of improving facilities is supported by Tourism Tasmania research, as quoted in the Lebski report.

‘Tourism Tasmania’s research indicates that the State already attracts a high proportion of mature-age visitors and TVS data (2008) suggests that 58% of interstate visitors who used a caravan park, campervan/motorhome, tent or cabin were aged over 45 years.

NOTE: These visitors may not have used this type of accommodation exclusively throughout their trip and in some instances it may have been the only available accommodation, rather than a preferred option.

As an increasing number of Baby Boomers retire and move into a more leisure- oriented lifestyle, there are considerable opportunities for Tasmanian caravan and holiday park operators to benefit from this new wave of mobile travellers. It

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 33

is predicted that ‘the number of nights spent by senior travellers in caravan and camping accommodation will increase from 15.7m nights in 2003/04 to 19.9m in 2011’8.

Preliminary research conducted as part of the WA study suggests that ‘this shift in both market power and market size will create new opportunities for the tourism industry, however it is expected that the new ‘Senior’ market will be sophisticated, well travelled and likely demand higher levels of service than past generations’9.

6.4 Alternative Energy Alternative energy production for the sub region has traditionally meant hydro power but more recently, investigations into geo thermal and wind power have begun to occur. These investigations have mainly focused on the Central Highlands area. The remoteness and windiness of the Highlands area in particular, along with its relative accessibility to the existing electricity transmission infrastructure is beginning to be recognised, with energy companies expressing interest in developing wind farms in the area. Private land on the eastern shore of Lake Echo has been identified by an American Wind Power company as a potential site for a large wind farm.

6.5 Forestry Forestry is a significant rural activity within the Central Highlands Council area. Forestry is generally a permitted use if accompanied by an approved Timber Harvesting Plan. Once carbon trading becomes a reality there is potential for forest management activities focused on carbon sequestration to become a new industry in the Lakes area.

6.6 Agriculture An emerging opportunity available to farmers and other rural land owners to enhance their return from their land as well as enhance the condition of their properties and the catchment, is eco services. Effectively Eco services are market based instruments (MBI) whereby land owners are paid to manage aspects of the natural environment on their land. This payment may come from the Government, where they have identified particular natural assets that require protection and management, or private developers, who are required to protect and enhance stands of native vegetation to offset vegetation removed for development. Eco services may involve revegetation work, fencing and pest plant and animal management and may compliment conservation programs such as the Protected Areas on Private Lands program.

Carbon storage is also emerging as a potential eco service that may be available to rural landholders.

8 ibid 9 ibid

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 34

PART 2:

Settlement Strategy

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL

7. Settlement Strategy

7.1 Aims and Objectives The general objectives of the current Planning Scheme summarises the appropriate aims and objectives that a settlement strategy should work towards for the Highland Lakes area. They are: (i) To encourage sustainable long term use of appropriate areas for agricultural, pastoral and forestry activities. (ii) To strengthen the commercial and tourist roles of the existing townships and create an appropriate network of settlements to meet the needs of residents and visitors. (iii) To conserve significant vegetation, habitat and scenic resources. (iv) To encourage land use and development to occur in consideration of land capability. (v) To maintain recreational values, including the wild fishery, and to expand opportunities for resource-related tourism. (vi) To protect places of cultural significance, and (vii) To reinforce the role of the area as a major water catchment for the generation of hydro-electric power, domestic water supply and irrigation.

7.2 Key Assets to be Protected The key assets of the Highland Lakes area that need protecting are: • The Lakes – water quality, water levels and fish habitat • The Landscape • Hydro assets – power stations, dams, pipelines, buildings • Natural Values – flora and fauna • Rural Land. • The ‘shack’ character of the existing settlements

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 34

7.3 Strategies to Protect the Key Assets

7.3.1 The Lakes

Provide Foreshore Reserves Given that a large number of the lakes are utilised for the production of hydro electricity and thus have fluctuating water levels, the need to keep development above the maximum flood lines or full supply level as designated by Hydro Tasmania’s water supply limits is an obvious strategy that can be ensured by appropriate planning scheme provisions. The most straightforward provision is to ensure that a foreshore reserve is always required in any subdivision bordering a lake. The foreshore reserve should be wide enough to ensure a good vegetative buffer can be maintained around the lake and should be measured inland from the maximum flood line level or full supply level. A foreshore reserve width of 100m generally provides a width that allows for a vegetated buffer and ensures that buildings other than boat ramps and jetties do not intrude in to the lake foreshore. It also allows public access to the lakeshore to be maintained. This 100m width is already a requirement in the planning scheme for most of the Highland Lakes.

Protect Water Quality Currently the overall water quality of the lakes appears to be good with little evidence of water quality problems linked to subdivision and development activity. Whilst individual septic tank problems do occur, in general the works taken to provide adequate sewerage treatment systems as part of the Shack Site Categorisation Project appear to be working. To ensure that water quality is protected a strategy of requiring domestic aerated waste water type systems mainly is encouraged although in places where power supply is not available and soil conditions are appropriate, larger lot sizes that can provide for a septic tank, may be appropriate. The current practice of requiring a thorough waste treatment analysis which in effect is the basis for deciding what is the appropriate lot yield for an area is considered to be working reasonably well and should be continued.

Boat ramps and jetties Section 5.3.5 of this report details the number of boat ramps and their locations on the Hydro controlled lakes. In discussion with Hydro Tasmania officers it was indicated that there is considered to be an adequate number of boat ramps and jetties available and any increase especially of private ones should be discouraged. There would appear to be little need or pressure for any more boat ramps although the issue of access to the water when lake levels are low and the water level moves away from the boat ramp or jetty is certainly an issue that has grown in recent years with the dry conditions. Generally the strategy in relation to boat ramps and jetties should be to contain them to existing locations and any new ones should only be provided where a recreational or lake management plan has indicated the need for one and it is available for public use.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 35

Lakeside Services and Facilities Mainly Hydro Tasmania and to some degree the Inland Fisheries Service along with the Parks and Wildlife Service and the Central Highlands Council have input to where recreational facilities such as toilets and camp sites, are provided and what level of services should be provided. Fishing and recreational pressure varies across the lakes, with Great Lake and Arthurs Lake attracting most attention in recent years. Hydro Tasmania see potential for the Brady and Derwent chain of lakes – Lakes Cloony, Meadowbank and Tungatinah to increase the number of fishers using them. Lake Echo is also seen as having potential to increase its share of fishers with access to the lake recently improved. Lake Echo currently has some limited camping available but no services or toilets available. Penstock Lagoon already has significant numbers of fishers using it but also has no toilets.

The need to gain a better understanding of what level of demand exists for recreational use around the various lakes and what level of services are appropriate and where they should be best located has been recognised with a Highland Lakes Spectrum Assessment study being suggested for the area. This study if conducted would provide data on the level of usage and demand for services. From this analysis a strategy to manage the demand and decide on the best locations for facilities and the appropriate range of facilities could be provided and developed. This would greatly assist the multiple management agencies in deciding what level of facilities are most appropriate and where they would be best located.

7.3.2 The Landscape The existing rugged landscape of the Highland Lakes is a not untouched and in effect is a working landscape with evidence of its Hydro past and present clearly evident and numerous shack settlements also evident. These contribute to the unique landscape that is the Highland Lakes today along with the still predominantly natural landscape of rocks, moorland, lakes and trees. A strategy to protect this landscape should aim to include provisions in the planning scheme that require buildings to be generally subdued in the landscape, to be well set back from the lake foreshore and where roads run close to lakeshores, where possible to limit development to the inland side of the road.

7.3.3 Natural Values The Highland Lakes area is well recognised for its exceptional natural values with the North West area being part of the Central Plateau Conservation Area and the wider area recognised as containing critical habitats for many threatened species. Whilst a settlement strategy in essence is about planning for human services and facilities, a key consideration is the need to ensure that the natural systems are protected and impacts on them are mitigated. Provisions in the planning scheme that require consideration of threatened flora and fauna habitat, protection of water quality, setbacks from the lakes, bushfire management and vegetation clearing and landscaping that is sensitive to the need to also protect habitat can all assist in protecting the natural values of the area. Ensuring the growth is located in areas where services already exist and can be more effectively utilised, also helps protect natural values.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 36

7.3.4 Hydro assets The Highland Lakes area has a unique heritage of hydro based industrialisation, with an impressive array of dams, pipelines and power stations spread across the area. The tourist potential of these assets is only just being realised. Hydro Tasmania has done some significant studies of its hydro heritage with 150 sites assessed. The need to protect this heritage whilst at the same time maintaining a modern hydro power system is a challenge for them. The tourist potential of some of the sites is being recognised as is the potential of the old hydro towns for tourist accommodation and services – an example being the development of Tarraleah. This strategy attempts to recognise this potential by identifying the main old hydro towns as tourist focused centres.

7.4 Settlement Hierarchy

7.4.1 Existing Development Pattern It is difficult to describe the pattern of development in the Highland Lakes area as much of the settlement pattern is ad-hoc and based on shacks being developed in popular fishing spots where access to the lakes was easier. These settlements are characterised by an eclectic mix of shacks often located haphazardly along various lake shorelines and seem to be more concentrated on the lakes in the eastern part of the plateau, around Great Lake and Arthurs Lake in particular.

The other form of development that is characteristic of the Lakes area is the more formally planned and subdivided Hydro settlements, developed during the hay day of Hydro industrialisation in the Highlands in the 1950’s. These settlements were generally located in the SW corner of the Highlands. A number of these settlements such as Bronte, Tarraleah and Waddamana are now significantly smaller settlements with much of their services and infrastructure removed. However they still retain some services and population and have become an important part of the tourism infrastructure in the Highlands.

The following describes some defining characteristics and key functions of the settlements in the Highland Lakes area. In a general sense the Highland Lakes area can be divided into three sub ‘regions.’

The Eastern Lakes area This area is accessed via the A5, better known as the Lakes Highway. The Lakes Highway is a sealed road until just north of Miena, where it becomes an unsealed road at Lochiel Drive. It runs along the western shore of Great Lake to the settlement at Doctors Point and eventually on to Deloraine. Whilst Miena is the largest concentration of shacks in the area and has a number of basic services such as a store and service station, there are concentrations of shacks spread along the southern and western shores of Great Lake, such as Tods Corner, Liawenee, Reynolds Neck, Doctors Point and Breona. Arthurs Lake shacks are concentrated on the southern shore of the Lake at Wilburville, but a concentration of shacks also exists at Flintstone and Morass Bay. Both of these lakes along with a number of smaller ones such as Lagoon of Islands and Woods Lake have Hydro Tasmania as the primary land manager.

Further east are Lakes Sorell and Crescent which until recent dry conditions were the premier fishing lakes in the region, with shacks concentrated at Interlaken. Unlike the other lakes these lakes have the Parks and Wildlife Service as their primary land manager, with Inland Fisheries also having an important management role. The dry conditions of recent years have decimated the fisheries of the lakes, with Interlaken showing little development activity and the camping facilities there being underutilised and deteriorating.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 37

In this area the settlement of Miena is considered to be the primary service settlement with potential to focus services and growth here. Wilburville is considered to have some growth potential also, although a recent scheme amendment approved by the RPDC has rezoned land on the lake side of Wilburville to Holiday Residential and will allow 27 lots to be developed here.

The South West area This part of the Highlands is the focus of much of the critical Hydro lakes and Hydro infrastructure. It includes the Hydro Lakes such as Laughing Jack Lagoon, Bronte Lagoon, Lake Samuel, Lake Big Jim, Lake Binney, Dee Lagoon and Brady’s Lake as well as the more isolated Lake Echo. The main Hydro settlements were located at Bronte Park, Tarraleah, Wayatinah and Waddamana. These settlements are significantly reduced in size to what the once were but still retain some services, especially Bronte Park. Shack settlements occur at Bronte Park, Bronte Lagoon and Brady’s Lake. The primary land manager for these lakes and surrounds is Hydro Tasmania.

Further west are Lake St Claire and Lake King William with the small settlement of Derwent Bridge, located between the two lakes on the A10 highway to the West Coast. As much of this area is National Park, there is little in the way of shacks or settlements outside of Derwent Bridge.

The North West area The NW is the most remote and untouched part of the Highland Lakes area and is part of the Central Plateau Conservation Area. It consists of Lake Augusta and a myriad of smaller lakes. There are no settlements in this area.

7.4.2 Suggested Settlement Hierarchy In describing the existing settlements in the Highland Lakes area there appears to be a simple settlement hierarchy that reflects the existing realities and allows some opportunities for growth in some targeted areas. The suggested hierarchy is as follows: • Service Centre Settlements where there is at least 50 plus shacks or residential dwellings, some existing infrastructure and services such as a store, some accommodation, a service station, and some camping facilities and some basic community services such as a rural fire brigade or waste transfer station. There is potential to provide for further residential and tourist development and build on the existing services available. • Tourist Focused Settlements which are mainly the old Hydro towns and retain some dwellings and/or shacks and tourist related infrastructure such as a caravan/camping park, tourist accommodation, and food services. Future development is likely to continue to be tourist focused. • Shack Settlements which have originated mainly as fishing shacks on Crown land but now have gained freehold title via the Shack Site Categorisation Program, and have basic domestic water and sewerage infrastructure but few other services. It also includes a few shack clusters created via the normal subdivision process. Many are surrounded by land of high conservation value, or marshy areas and development opportunities consist primarily of infill and consolidation. Further spreading along the lakes of such settlements is discouraged.

The Settlement Hierarchy Map in Appendix C illustrates the distribution of the settlements as described.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 38

7.5 Service Centre Settlements. Eastern Lakes Area: Great Lake – Miena, Arthurs Lake – Wilburville SW Lakes Area: Bronte Park

7.5.1 Great Lake - Miena Miena is the largest settlement located on the sealed section of the Lakes Road, on the southern shore of the Great Lake, approximately 130 km from Hobart. It has a population of 106 persons with median age of 53 years, an average household size of 1.8 persons and 10.4% of the population over 65 years of age10.

It is primarily a fishing shack settlement but has developed a number of services over the years, including a fishing lodge with accommodation (12-15 double rooms), a hotel with 25 rooms, cabins, restaurant and bar, a small hard stand area with basic facilities for caravans, a store selling groceries, fuel, LPG and fishing equipment, a community hall and volunteer run ambulance. A doctor visits twice a week, a school bus operates to Bothwell and a police station is located further north along the western shore of the lake at Liawenee. It also has some limited reticulated sewerage and associated waste water irrigation areas – indicated as ‘potential impact areas’ in the current planning scheme.

Opportunities • Whilst population growth is very limited and the population is aging, there is an increasing occupation of the existing housing stock occurring and demand for new lots, averaging about 6 lots per annum11. To increase the viability of the settlement there is considered to be some potential to facilitate services focused around the existing hall, lodge and store. • Allow some further expansion of the residential areas by recognising the more permanent residential occupation occurring and allow some limited expansion of the residential zone as indicated in the Miena Map, Appendix D. • The MMT Consultancy Services report published in June of 2008, relating to Health Services in the Central Highlands, suggested that the Miena community hall should be better utilised as a base for visiting health services to operate from12.

Recommendations • Rezone the area around the lodge, hall and store and including the artificial lake from Holiday Residential to Village. • Rezone the remaining area currently zoned Holiday Residential to Residential in the new planning scheme. (A low density residential or rural living zone is also a possibility. PD1 which describes the zones that can be used in future planning schemes is currently under review and thus it is not possible at this point in time to be definite as to the most appropriate zone to use.) • Extend the Residential zone to the lot of land currently zoned Rural, located immediately south and adjacent to the rear lots on Fleming Drive – see Appendix D.

10 Source, ABS State Suburbs data 11 Pers comm, P Thiessen, September 2009 12MMC Consultancy Services, June 2008 ‘Review of a proposal to establish a Multipurpose Service for the Central Highlands in the context of the Tasmanian Health Plan’

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 39

• The minimum lot size in the Village zone as well as in the Residential zone should be 3000sq metres if unable to be connected to reticulated sewerage and reliant on an individual AWTS, or 1ha if reliant on a septic system. In both cases the minimum lot size could be reduced if a detailed site specific assessment by an appropriately qualified person is submitted indicating smaller lots can be safely sewered with no environmental impacts. This figure is based on discussions with the environmental consultant to the Central Highlands Council and a review of some relevant publications relating to the use of AWTS’s. • Develop a Shacks Settlements Design Overlay in the new planning scheme, which includes objectives to maintain the shack character of the settlements and provisions requiring alterations and any new shacks to be generally single storey, located on the site unobtrusively and to be constructed in materials with muted colours. Apply this to the residential zones of Miena.

7.5.2 Arthurs Lake - Wilburville Wilburville is the largest shack settlement on the southern shores of Arthurs Lake.

It consists of approximately 110 shacks located south west of the Arthur Dam. Services are limited but the settlement has a boat ramp at Arthurs Dam and a waste transfer station is located nearby, close to Flintstone Drive. The bulk of the settlement consists of small shacks on small blocks, located on the southern side of the Lakes Road and well set back from the lake. Sixteen larger lots, most of which now have shacks on them, are located closer to Arthurs Dam also on the southern side of the Lakes Road.

Whilst services are limited and no reticulated sewerage or water exists, the growing popularity of Arthurs Lake for fishing has contributed to a recent demand for subdivision in the Wilburvillle area.

A 2006 rezoning and subdivision application for 29 lots on the northern (lake side) of the Arthurs Lake Road was eventually approved in June 2008 by the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC), with conditions reducing the number of lots to 27. The land in question consists of parts of CT 33300/1 and CT 33300/2 and involves an area of 65 hectares. The decision has converted what was rural zoned land to mainly Holiday Residential and a small area of Conservation – RPDC Ref Draft Amendment 1/2005, permit Application No 8/05.

The Wilburville recommendations map highlights the land in question – See Appendix E. Due to the soil conditions and the area needed for waste water disposal systems, the subdivision consists of large lots varying in size from a minimum of 0.5 ha to a few hectares. A 2007 application for the adjoining triangular shaped parcel of land – CT 136723/1 was refused by the RPDC. This application, applied to rezone a 2.78 ha section of the title from Rural to Holiday Residential and a 5 lot subdivision. It was refused by the RPDC mainly on the grounds that a strategy was going to be prepared for the Highland Lakes to give some direction to the location and extent of future development for the settlements and thus it was premature to approve further rezoning until this was completed.

Opportunities The recent demand for subdivision and rezoning applications as described in the previous paragraphs illustrates an opportunity to consolidate some further development in the Wilburville area and create the potential for some services to be eventually located here. Refer to recent rezoning applications.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 40

Recommendations • Rezoning area on the southern side of the Lakes highway as indicated in the Wilburville recommendations map from Rural to Village. • Rezone the remaining area currently zoned Holiday Residential to Residential in the new planning scheme. • The minimum lot size in the Village zone as well as in the Residential zone should be 3000sq metres if unable to be connected to reticulated sewerage and thus reliant on an AWTS, or 1ha if reliant on a septic system. In both cases the minimum lot size could be reduced to 1500 square metres if a detailed site specific assessment by an appropriately qualified person is submitted indicating smaller lots can be safely created with no environmental impacts. This figure is based on discussions with the environmental consultant to the Central Highlands Council and a review of some relevant publications relating to the use of AWTS’s.

7.5.3 Bronte Park Bronte Park is located on the sealed section of the Marlborough Highway approximately half way between Hobart and Queenstown. It was established in the 1940’s as an accommodation centre for Hydro workers. By the 1950s it was a bustling village of over 700 workers, with a store, police station, post office, school, cinema, hospital, dairy and a church. Today many of the original houses and buildings have been removed, with only a few remaining now as part of the Bronte Park Highland Village.13 The permanent population is about 16 but increases significantly during the fishing season.

Services include the Bronte Park Highland Village, caravan/camping park, store, waste transfer facility and service station. The Highland village is serviced by a privately owned sewerage treatment plant which also provides reticulated sewerage for an adjacent subdivision, which has been under construction for a number of years and is close to completion. The settlement also has reticulated water available from a large water tank. The existing sewerage treatment plant has some spare capacity for approximately 11 lots and possibly more if minor upgrades occur.. A subdivision proposal for the currently vacant land in between the two existing subdivisions is currently being investigated. This would utilise the spare capacity of the treatment plant.

The settlement is covered by the Holiday Residential zone in the current planning scheme.

Opportunities • The existing services, infrastructure and facilities entitle Bronte Park to be considered the main service settlement in the SW Highland Lakes area. The extent of the existing Holiday Residential zone allows for infill development to occur as well as some expansion and thus the existing boundaries are considered adequate for the settlement for the future. However given the water and sewerage infrastructure that exists, the tourist infrastructure and to encourage a range of services to develop, it is considered that part of the current Holiday Residential zoning should be changed to a Village zone as indicated in the Bronte Park recommendations map in Appendix F.

13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte_Park,_Tasmania

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 41

Recommendations • Rezone part of the existing Holiday Residential zone to Village as indicated in the Bronte Park recommendations map in Appendix F. Rezoning of the recommended area will recognise the existing facilities in the area and allow for some expansion of services and tourist related accommodation. The land suggested for Village zoning is either already developed to some degree or else was previously part of the old Bronte Park Hydro town, is relatively cleared of vegetation, flat and has the potential to create a consolidated focal point to the settlement. • The minimum lot size in the Village zone as well as in the Residential zone should be 3000sq metres if unable to be connected to reticulated sewerage and reliant on an AWTS, or 1ha if reliant on a septic system. In both cases the minimum lot size could be reduced if a detailed site specific assessment by an appropriately qualified person is submitted indicating smaller lots can be safely with no environmental impacts. This figure is based on discussions with the environmental consultant to the Central Highlands Council and a review of some relevant publications relating to the use of AWTS’s. • Where connection to some form of a reticulated system is possible or a qualified persons report indicates a smaller lot size is possible the minimum lot size should be no smaller than 1500 square metres?

7.5.4 Minimum lot size – the critical factor Currently the existing planning scheme does not stipulate a minimum lot size for the Village zones and Holiday Residential zones. This is understandable given the variation in the types of settlements that exist in the Central Highlands municipal area. However it can be very useful to have some guidance on the preferred lot sizes for an area. It assists potential developers, the regulators of development and service providers to estimate the potential population numbers in an area and likely demand for services.

For the Highland Lakes area the requirement to ensure that any new subdivisions can be adequately sewered on site becomes the critical issue in determining what minimum lot size might be appropriate. Protecting the water quality of the lakes is absolutely essential and given the lack of reticulated sewerage, domestic on site sewerage systems must be given adequate space to ensure that no contaminated runoff leaves the site.

Any provisions in the new planning scheme should ensure that a detailed waste water analysis must be conducted as part of any subdivision application and that the 3000 square metre and 1 ha minimum should not be taken as absolutes, but as guidelines. If a detailed analysis shows that larger sites are needed, or that smaller sites could be sewered safely, than that site specific analysis should carry more weight than the minimum lot size standard.

Within the three service settlements where some expansion of shacks is considered reasonable, it is considered desirable to have relatively small lots and achieve a good level of consolidation and better potential to provide services to them, rather than having shacks located on larger lots. Consolidating the settlement also creates better opportunities to provide bushfire buffers around the total settlement, rather than each individual lot having a large bushfire buffer and ultimately having more of a visual impact over a larger area.

Whilst it is considered that waste water treatment is the essential determinant in deciding on a minimum lot size, once this is decided on, other criteria relating to protecting vegetation, visual values and the character of the area will also need to be considered.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 42

7.6 Tourist Focused Settlements The tourist settlements consist mainly of the old Hydro settlements of Tarraleah, Waddamana and Wayatinah and the settlement of Derwent Bridge, all located in the SW lakes area. The first three mentioned were once settlements with significant populations, schools, shops, accommodation etc servicing the Hydro workforce and their families during the boom era of electricity infrastructure establishment. Today they retain only some of the tourist infrastructure and are focused on providing services for the tourists rather than being service centres.

Tarraleah in particular has recognised this function and has had a recent significant upgrade in its tourist facilities. It now offers a mix of accommodation at the luxury end of the tourist market as well as a restaurant, café, pub and holiday chalets. It does not have any private shacks or dwellings and thus is not considered a service centre in the way that Bronte Park is.

Opportunities These old Hydro settlements are considered to have the potential to improve their tourist focus and in particular to promote themselves as having significant industrial heritage, given the significant Hydro related buildings, power stations, dams and other infrastructure.

Derwent Park on the Lyell Highway is considered the gateway to the Lake St Clair area and the last settlement on the highway until the West Coast. Its function is totally tourist focused, offering accommodation and food services and has the potential to grow this function, although infrastructure is a limiting factor.

Waddamana and Wyatinah are also old Hydro settlements that have retained some housing and hydro infrastructure, now mainly focused on tourist accommodation. Waddamana in particular has maintained the power station as a beautifully preserved example of earlier hydro infrastructure. Both have the potential to attract more visitors.

Recommendations • Promote the tourist settlements as the key tourist locations with tourist facilities, easily accessible to the eco tourism activities in the surrounding areas • Promote the industrial heritage of the settlements and surrounding areas in association with Tourism Tasmania and Hydro Tasmania • Until the review of PD1 is completed it is difficult to say what is the most appropriate zoning for these tourist focused settlements. A Rural Village zone may be possible with a defined character focused on tourist accommodation and related services.

7.7 Minor Shack Settlements The many minor shack settlements are mainly scattered around a number of the lake shores and include: Alanvale Bradys Lake, Breona, Bronte, Butlers Gorge Central Plateau, Cramps Bay, Dee, Doctors Point Flintstone Hermitage, Hollow Tree

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 43

Interlaken Liawenee, Little Pine Lagoon, London Lakes Millers Bluff, Morass Bay, Osterley Reynolds Neck Shannon, Steppes, Tods Corner

Whilst each shack settlement responds to some degree to its unique physical location they have a number of characteristics in common. A shack holder at Tods Corner eloquently described what he sees as the character of The Tods corner shack settlement and in many ways that description is valid for most of these shack settlements.

‘The existing developments at Tods Corner are eclectic and have evolved over a long period. Many of the holiday homes have been constructed by their owners and are an expression of the owner’s individual taste, demographic and recreational needs. They are predominantly small (Single rooms in some cases.) to medium size dwellings with outbuildings designed to meet the needs of their owners such as boat garaging and firewood storage.

Whilst the appearance of the buildings express individual tastes and ingenuity, the design, scale, methods of construction and materials used are generally utilitarian and sympathetic to the natural environment. They are low to the ground, nestled into the landscape and vegetation to provide shelter from prevailing weather. Some of the older buildings have significant heritage and cultural value although this is probably not formally recognised. Individually and collectively the holiday homes are an expression of the character of Tods Corner. (Personal comment, Neil Morrow.)

This description of the shacks being low to the ground, nestled into the landscape and vegetation to provide shelter from the prevailing weather and sympathetic to the natural environment is an important element of these settlements that should be retained. In addition the design, scale and methods of construction should retain that sense of being generally utilitarian, whilst recognising that upgrades and the use of modern materials will occur.

The original reason for being for these shack settlements was to provide an easy access to the fishing resources of the lakes and shelter from the often harsh weather conditions. In addition they now often provide a family holiday retreat and whilst fishing is still the major activity, other recreational activities, based on the natural attractions of the area increasingly also occur.

Protection of those natural attractions is a critical part of this settlement strategy, as is the need to retain the unique character of these shack settlements. Most of the shack settlements have now got adequate domestic water and waste water treatment systems in place, but have no other infrastructure or services although a number as earlier mentioned, are close to public boat ramps and/or camping grounds or day reserves.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 44

Opportunities Now that improved domestic sewerage systems are in place, the existing shacks can become permanent or semi permanent dwellings, should that be the desire of the particular residents. This should occur only with the recognition that these minor shack settlements are not intended to have additional services provided to them and the design and style of improvements to the existing shacks or new shacks should maintain the shack character as earlier described.

Recommendations • Ensure the existing shack settlements are consolidated within their existing boundaries – i.e. as defined by the existing Holiday Residential zoning in the current planning scheme. Infill consisting of the development of vacant blocks, or resubdivision of larger blocks if waste water servicing requirements can be met, within the existing boundaries of the Holiday Residential zone should be allowed. Redevelopment of existing blocks and existing shacks should also be permitted, provided waste water servicing requirements can be met and the renovation of existing shacks is in keeping with the shack character of the settlement. • Rezone the Holiday Residential areas covering the shack settlements listed to Residential in the new planning scheme. • Develop a Shacks Settlements Design Overlay in the new planning scheme, which includes objectives to maintain the shack character of the settlements and provisions requiring alterations and any new shacks to be generally single storey, located on the site unobtrusively and to be constructed in materials with muted colours. • Setbacks from the lake shore should be maintained via a riparian reserve. The setback for any new development should be 100m and should be measured from the lakes highest supply level line. • Boat access to the lakes should be via the existing public boat ramps and private ramps or pontoons should be discouraged.

7.8 Rural Areas Under the current Planning Directive PD1 the required zoning for most of the land in the – Highland Lakes area that has not being designated Environmental Management is Rural Resource. Under the current planning scheme the minimum lot size is 20 hectares in the Rural zone. Section 5.5.3 of this report highlighted how a significant amount of residential development has occurred in the Rural zone in the Central Highlands areas, in recent years.

A change to the minimum lot size in the rural zone needs further discussion, but a 100 hectare minimum lot size may be appropriate to ensure that rural land is protected for rural purposes. However it may also be appropriate to consider allowing some limited Rural Living land to cater for those who wish to live on larger blocks. To maximise the potential to use existing services these should be located relatively close to the existing settlements. A possible location for some rural living is in the Barren Plains area, near Miena.

7.9 Conservation Areas The conservation areas of the Highland Lakes area are most appropriately zoned as Environmental Management. They have very limited dev potential – mainly ecotourism, and remote fishing opportunities.

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 45

8. References Athena Waste Management, ‘A Report on Waste Transfer Station Infrastructure and Operations in Tasmania, Draft.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007: Census 2001, http://www.abs.gov.au/, accessed 21 August 2007.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007: Census 2006, http://www.abs.gov.au/, accessed 21 August 2007.

Australian Heritage Places Inventory http://www.heritage.gov.au/ahpi/index.html - accessed 8 August 2007.

Central Highlands Council 1998: Central Highlands Council Planning Scheme 1998.

Central Highlands Council 2002: Strategic Plan 2009 – 2014.

Central Highlands Council 2002: Sport and Recreation Plan, March 2009.

Craig Lewis and Cathy savage, 2008. Camping guide to Tasmania

Demographic Change Advisory Council 2007: Demographic Change in Tasmania: challenges and opportunities. http://www.dcac.tas.gov.au/, accessed 23 August 2007.

Department of Health and Human Services 2007: Tasmania’s Health Plan, http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/futurehealth/, accessed 16 August 2007.

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources 2003: Rural Land Use Trends In Tasmania 2003 http://www.dier.tas.gov.au/forests/rural_land, accessed 2 October 2007.

Department of Primary Industries Water and the Environment (DPIWE) (2004) Better Planning Outcomes Discussion Paper,

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (2003) Planning System Improvements. Report by the PlanFirst Review Taskforce to the Minister for Infrastructure and Planning and Minister for Natural Resources

Inland Fisheries Tasmania. Tasmanian Inland Recreational Fisheries Management Plan, 2008-2018.

Inland Fisheries Tasmania, Annual Report, 2007/08.

Inspiring Place 2006 Southern Midlands Recreation Plan April 2006.

Jackson, N.O. 2007 Tasmania's Population, www.taspop.tasbis.com, accessed 2 October 2007.

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993

Local Government Forestry Consultative Committee 2006 – A Guide to planning approvals for forestry in Tasmania June 2006.

MMC Consultancy Services, June 2008 Review of a proposal to establish a Multipurpose Service for the Central Highlands in the context of the Tasmanian Health Plan

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 46

NRM South 2005: Natural Resource Management Strategy for Southern Tasmania May 2005.

NRM South 2005: Natural Resource Management Strategy for Southern Tasmania Supplementary Information May 2005.

Private Forest Tasmania 2007: Private Property Plantations in the Landscape in Tasmania as at 31 December 2006.

Resource Planning and Development Commission 2003: State of the Environment Report Tasmania http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/landuseplanning/better_planning_outcomes. Accessed 26 September 2007.

Resource Planning and Development Commission 2004: Planning Advisory Note – Integration of Land Use and Transport in Planning Schemes.

Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation 2001: Socio-Economic Impacts of Farm Forestry. http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/AFT/01-045sum.html.

Sarah Lebski associates, June 2009 Tasmanian Caravan and Holiday Park Market and Product analysis.

Sinclair Knight Mertz, 2008, Central Highlands Council Economic Development Plan, Data sources - Tourism Tasmania

Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority 2007: Annual Plan 2007/2008 http://stca.tas.gov.au/?p=42 Accessed 7 August 2007.

Southern Tasmanian Tourism Task Force 2003: Southern Tasmania Regional Touring Strategy. http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/tasind/ind_related/strts/index.html - Accessed 7 August 2007.

Southern Waste Strategy Authority 2006: Five Year Strategy 2006 – 2011 http://files.thereafter.com.au/swsa/SWSAStrategyv2.4.pdf Accessed 7 August 2007.

State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural land 2000.

Tasmanian Agricultural Productivity Group & Tasmanian Farmers & Graziers Association 2005: The Contribution of Agriculture to the Tasmanian Economy.

Tasmanian Together 2006: Progress Report http://www.tasmaniatogether.tas.gov.au/ Accessed 7 August 2007.

Tourism Tasmania 2004: Tourism 21 – A New 10-Year Vision.

Tourism Tasmania and Tourism Industry Council Tasmania 2007: T21 Highlights - Draft 21 May 2007 http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/pdf/20070521_t21highlights.pdf

Tourism Tasmania 2007: Tasmanian Visitor Survey Results - March 2007 http://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/research/tvs2007_resultsmarqtr.html - Accessed 7 August 2007.

The Premiers Physical Activity Council 2008. www.physicalactivity.tas.gov.au.

www.gohighlands.org.au/default.htm

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm 47

APPENDIX A

Map of Study Area

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

APPENDIX B

Land use in the Highland Lakes Area

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

APPENDIX C

Settlement Hierarchy Map

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

APPENDIX D

Miena

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

APPENDIX E

Wilburville

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

APPENDIX F

Bronte Park

pitt&sherry ref: HB08256H001 HLakesSS rep 31P Rev 00/CN/DL/rm

transport infras tructure | community infrastructure | industrial infrastructure | climate change

Brisbane 3rd Floor 87 Wickham Ter race PO Box 825 Spring Hill QLD 4004 T: (07) 3832 74 55 F: (07) 3832 74 66 E: [email protected] www.pittsh.com.au Canberra st 1 Floor incorporated as 20 Franklin Street Pitt & Sherry Holdings Pty Ltd PO Box 4442 ABN 77 009 586 083 Manuka ACT 2603 T: (02) 6295 21 00 F: (02) 6260 65 55

Devonport 1st Floor 35 Oldaker Street PO Box 836 Devonport Tasmania 7310 T: (03) 6424 16 41 F: (03) 6424 9215

Hobart LGF 199 Macquarie Street PO Box 94 Hobart Tasmania 7001 T: (03) 6210 1400 F: (03) 6223 1299

Hobart Building Surveying GF 199 Macquarie Street T: (03) 6210 1476 F: (03) 6223 7017

Launceston 4th Floor 113 – 115 Cimitiere Street PO Box 1409 Launceston Tasmania 7250 T: (03) 6323 1900 F: (03) 6334 4651

Melbourne 3rd Floor 147 Eastern Road PO Box 259 South Melbourne Victoria 3205 T: (03) 9682 5290 F: (03) 9682 52 92