Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust's Report And

Home , Hobart, Wellington Park

Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area June 2015

Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Prepared and published by: Tasmanian Planning Commission GPO Box 1691 Hobart Tasmania 7001

June 2015 email address: [email protected] internet address: www.planning.tas.gov.au

Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Table of contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1

1.1 Referral to the Commission ...... 1

1.2 Background to the Draft Amendment ...... 1

1.3 Review process by the Commission ...... 2

2.0 Review of representations and the Trust’s report ...... 5

2.1 Overview ...... 5

2.2 Trust’s general responses ...... 6

2.3 Specific representors’ issues and the Trust’s responses ...... 8

3.0 Conclusion ...... 13

Appendix 1: List of Representors ...... 15

Appendix 2: List of representors at the hearing...... 21

Appendix 3: Report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission on Representations Received ...... 22

Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Referral to the Commission In October 2014, the Wellington Park Management Trust (the Trust) referred 551 representations and the report of the Trust, regarding the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area (the Draft Plan), to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review under Part 4 of the Wellington Park Act 1993 (the Act). The Commission’s role is limited to reviewing the representations received and the report of the Trust, with reference to the Draft Plan. This involves a review of the representations and how the Trust has responded to issues raised in representations. The Commission cannot approve, amend or refuse the Draft Plan. Nor can it comment on the merit of the Draft Plan. Further discussion on the scope of the Commission’s role is under 2.1.1 below.

1.2 Background to the Draft Amendment The recently approved 2013 Management Plan increased the size of the former Pinnacle Zone in the Wellington Park from that in the previous 2005 Management Plan, as well as increasing the range of uses and developments that could be considered in this area. The Pinnacle Specific Area (PSA) allows for consideration of the following uses and developments: 1. tourist operations; 2. food services; 3. transport depot and distribution (including shuttle buses; cable cars and aerial ropeways and funicular rail and cable rail systems); 4. vehicle parking (single storey); 5. utilities; 6. storage (for park management; and 7. natural and cultural values management. In June 2014 the Trust received a formal request from the Mt Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) to consider amending (extending) the boundary of the PSA. After considering the request at its meeting in July 2014, the Trust initiated the process to amend the Management Plan accordingly. The proposed extension of approximately 1.1 hectares is east of the existing observation shelter, increasing the area of the PSA by about 13 %. The proposed boundary extension aligns with the additional area requested by the MWCC. No other changes were proposed to the Management Plan. The area in question is currently within the Natural Zone, which does not allow for commercial development, but does allow for ‘infrastructure associated with potential transport modes’. If the amendment is approved, the area’s rezoning to PSA will allow for consideration of any development proposal fitting within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the PSA as described in Table 3 in chapter 8 of the Management Plan. The Trust has not received any development proposals for the PSA, and has been clear that its proposal to extend the PSA does not imply support for any particular development. It proposed the Draft Plan for consideration wholly on its merits alone.

Introduction 1 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

1.2.1 Public exhibition of the Draft Plan and representations

The Trust prepared the Draft Plan in accordance with section 24 of the Act. The Trust placed the Draft Plan on public exhibition in August 2014, and subsequently received 551 representations.

1.2.2 Trust’s report

Under section 24A of the Act, the Trust is required to forward to the Commission:  a copy of all the representations; and  a report containing – - a summary of the representations; and - the Trust’s opinion on the merits of the representations including whether or not it believes the representations to be of sufficient merit to warrant modification of the plan; and - a summary of any proposed modification to the plan; and - any additional information that the Trust considers relevant. The Commission received a copy of the Trust’s report and a copy of the representations in October 2014 (Appendix 3).

1.3 Review process by the Commission The review process has been conducted in accordance with Part 4, sections 24A – 24D of the Act: 24A. Referral of representations to Commission The Trust, within 30 days after receiving any representations under section 24(7)(c) or within any further period that the Minister allows, is to forward to the Commission – (a) a copy of all representations received under section 24; and (b) a report containing – (i) a summary of the representations; and (ii) the Trust's opinion on the merits of the representations including whether or not it believes the representations to be of sufficient merit to warrant modification of the plan; and (iii) a summary of any proposed modification to the plan; and (iv) any additional information that the Trust considers relevant.

24B. Public exhibition of representations, &c. (1) The Commission, as soon as practicable after receipt of copies of representations and the report of the Trust under section 24A, is to notify by public notice – (a) the places at which copies of the representations and report are to be exhibited; and (b) the period during which they are to be exhibited; and (c) any other information that the Commission considers relevant. (2) At least one of the places referred to in subsection (1)(a) is to be in the city of Hobart. (3) The Trust and the Commission may make available any information that may assist public consideration of the representations and the report of the Trust at the places referred to in subsection (1)(a).

2 Introduction Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

24C. Review by Commission (1) The Commission is to review the representations and the report of the Trust made under section 24A with reference to the management plan. (2) The Commission, within 21 days after receipt of the copies of the representations and the report of the Trust or within any further period that the Minister allows, is to decide whether or not to hold a hearing to assist in its review of the representations. (3) If the Commission decides to hold a hearing, the Commission is to notify the Trust of that decision. (4) If the Commission decides not to hold a hearing, the Commission, within 14 days after making that decision, is to give written notice of that decision to – (a) the Trust; and (b) any person who has made a representation under section 24(7). (5) A hearing is to be conducted in accordance with Part 3 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997.

24D. Report of Commission (1) The Commission, within such period as the Minister allows, is to provide the Trust with a report of the review under section 24C. (2) As soon as practicable after the period referred to in subsection (1), the Commission is to publish in the Gazette and in a daily newspaper circulating generally within the State notice of – (a) the making of its report; and (b) the places where copies of its report are available for inspection by the public.

In accordance with section 24B of the Act, the Commission gave public notice in The Mercury newspaper that copies of representations received, and the Trust’s report, were available for public inspection at the Huon Valley, Kingborough, Hobart City, Glenorchy City and Derwent Valley Council offices, the Commission’s Hobart office and on the Commission’s website. The representations and report were exhibited for 21 days from 1 November 2014.

1.3.1 Hearing

Section 24C of the Act provides that a hearing may be held at the Commission’s discretion to assist in the review process. In February 2015, the Commission determined that a hearing was required to assist in the review of the representations, and in accordance with section 24C(4) of the Act, the Commission gave written notice of its decision to hold a hearing to the Trust and each person who made a representation. In addition, the hearing was notified in The Examiner and The Mercury newspapers. The Commission delegated its powers and functions under section 8 of the Tasmanian Planning Commission Act 1997 (TPC Act) in respect of the hearing to a Panel comprising Commissioner Ann Cunningham (Chair), Commissioner Roger Howlett and Ms Marietta Wong. A directions hearing was held at the Commission’s office in Hobart on 6 March 2015, and the hearing on 20 and 27 April 2015. The hearing was undertaken in accordance with Part 3 of the TPC Act. Appendix 2 lists people who attended or made a submission at the hearing.

1.3.2 Commission report to the Trust

A copy of this report has been provided to the Trust, and notices published in the Tasmanian Government Gazette and The Mercury newspaper, as required under the Act.

Introduction 3 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Figure 1 describes the review process for draft Management Plans pursuant to the Act.

Figure 1 Review process

The Trust prepares and then places draft Management Plan on public exhibition and invites representations

The Trust provides Commission with copies of representations & Trust’s report

Representations & Trust’s report are publicly available

Commission Commission determines whether Commission determines to to hold a hearing to assist in determines to not hold a hearing reviewing representations hold a hearing

Commission holds Commission provides Trust with Commission a hearing a report of its review notifies Trust & representors

Commission places notice in Gazette advising report has been prepared and is available for public inspection

4 Introduction Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

2.0 Review of representations and the Trust’s report

2.1 Overview 2.1.1 Scope of the Commission’s review Submissions were made at the directions hearing regarding the scope of the Commission’s review powers under the Act. In particular, two representors (367 and the Environmental Defender’s Office [EDO] Tasmania on behalf of Residents Opposed to the Cable Car [ROCC] 426) considered that the Commission’s review could extend to cover the merits of the amendment. However, the Panel’s view was that the provisions of section 24C of the Act (see 1.3 above) restrict the scope of the Commission’s review. The review focuses on the representations and the report, but not the merits of the Draft Plan. In the case of a draft plan that amends a Management Plan, the representations and the report will be confined to the amendment. Hence, the review is not at large. The words ‘with reference to the Management Plan’ direct the Commission to the context in which the review takes place, not the merits of the plan. In this report, the Panel’s review is restricted to a consideration of adequacy of the Trust’s responses to the representations. Therefore, the Panel notes that any review of the merits of the plan, and the ability to change the Draft Plan, is solely the purview of the Trust. 2.1.2 Representations on Draft Plan The Trust received 551 representations on many issues. Most of the representations (both supporters and opponents) associated the proposed amendment with a proposal for a cable car, and commented on both. Some restricted their representation to the Draft Plan, whilst many just addressed a cable car proposal. Most assumed that particular infrastructure for a cable car would be located in the proposed extension to the PSA. Whilst the majority of representations opposed the Draft Plan and / or a cable car, a sizeable number supported both these. The Trust’s report set out detailed responses to each issue raised, but did not propose any changes to the Draft Plan. 2.1.3 General comment on adequacy of Trust’s responses The Panel considered all the representations, and the Trust’s responses set out in its report to the Commission. The Panel notes that many of the representations addressed similar issues and that the Trust grouped these issues in its responses in the report. The Panel finds that the Trust has adequately dealt with many of the issues raised, and therefore the Panel will make no further comment on these matters. However, the Panel does find that a number of significant issues raised by representors were inadequately addressed by the Trust. Therefore those responses that the Panel finds do not fully address the respondents’ concerns are further discussed from 2.3 below.

Review 5 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

2.2 Trust’s general responses 2.2.1 Trust’s summary of the representations The Trust is required1, in its report to the Commission, to include a summary of the representations. A number of representors, particularly at the hearing, claimed that the Trust had inadequately summarised, and hence poorly addressed, their representations. Representations

Several representors (e.g. 367, 394, EDO obo 97 & 426, Hobart City Council – HCC 474) claimed that the Trust had not properly summarised (or perhaps even fully read), their representations, as required under the Act. Representor 367 claimed that the Trust had not summarised nor addressed his point that a cable car terminal could be contained within the existing PSA. HCC (474) was concerned that the Trust had apparently not read all of its representation, and therefore could not have properly considered the detail, particularly regarding how the proposal addressed the vision and objectives in the Management Plan. The EDO drew attention to representation 394 that proposed an alternative amendment to the existing PSA, but did not actually comment on the Trust’s proposal. The EDO noted that the Trust did not acknowledge this ‘representation’ as another proposal, but included it with other objectors to the current proposal. The EDO also claimed that its client’s (ROCC 426) representation was not considered in full. Representor 494 was concerned that the Trust had not summarised several of the issues raised in his representation, for example, the ‘precautionary principle’ not being applied, and the potential for visual intrusion when viewing from The Pinnacle, amongst others. Trust’s response The Trust did not specifically acknowledge the issue raised by representor 367 against his representation. However, the Trust did acknowledge and responded to those that claimed the PSA should not be extended, since it had already been extended in the recent management plan (see 2.3.5 below). At the hearing, the Trust revealed that it had not read the HCC’s representation in full, but had relied on a summary prepared by the Manager, Wellington Park. In addition, the Trust also acknowledged, in response to the EDO claims, that it had only read a summary of the representations, this being accepted standard practice for matters requiring the Trust’s consideration. The Trust summarised representor 394’s issue (although did not consider that this was a new amendment proposal) and provided a response regarding his argument for a smaller PSA. Panel’s findings The Panel acknowledges that the reading of all representations is a large and time- consuming task. However, the Act requires that the Trust summarises the representations, and therefore the Panel expects that the summaries (contained in the Response Table of the Trust’s report) comprehensively include all the issues raised, whether grouped, or against individual representors. The Panel finds that the examples of omissions raised above were not in accordance with the Act and that if the summaries were deficient, then there could not be any responses to those omitted issues. In respect of representor 394 (alternative amendment proposal), the Panel considers that this was possibly a misinterpretation by the Trust of what the letter’s writer intended, and was not an actual representation on the

1 section 24A(b)(i) of the Act

6 Review Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area current proposal. Given its timing, it may have been inadvertently included as a representation. 2.2.2 Trust’s consideration of merits of representations As part of the statutory process set out under section 24A(b)(ii) of the Act2, the Trust must include in its report to the Commission commentary regarding the merits of the representations and whether or not they warrant modification of the (draft) plan. Whilst the Trust may have considered the merits of each of the representations, this is not clear in its general discussion of the issues raised or in any of its detailed responses to the representations. At the hearing, the EDO (obo 97 and ROCC 426) also claimed that the Trust had not complied with section 24A(b)(ii). The most relevant comment by the Trust in this regard is in its Summary: After considering the representations received, the Trust’s preliminary opinion is that it believes the proposed amendment to the [Management Plan] is consistent with the vision, principles and objectives of the [Management Plan]. The Panel (and other readers) are led to conclude that the detailed responses and the discussion imply that the vast majority of representations do not hold significant enough merit to warrant the Trust changing the Draft Plan, since the Trust has not proposed changes in its report, nor in its responses at the public hearing. Therefore the Panel considers that, in relation to section 24A(b)(ii), the Trust‘s responses have not included an opinion on the merits of the representations as to whether the representations are of sufficient merit, or not to warrant modification of the Draft Plan. 2.2.3 General response from Trust regarding process The Trust has responded to many issues raised in the representations by describing, and reinforcing, the process it is undertaking in finalising the Draft Plan. These issues varied, and included concerns that the Draft Plan had not addressed Management Plan objectives, and concerns that the Trust did not provide any reasons for the proposal, that the Trust proposed to change the Management Plan at the request of one developer and that the proposal will compromise the values of the park, amongst others. Representations The HCC (474) and others (e.g. 97, 486, 507) raised issues about the Trust not demonstrating how the proposed amendment furthers the vision, principles and objectives of the Management Plan and the purposes for which Wellington Park was declared. Representor 144 was concerned that the Trust did not give reasons for the proposal and mislead the public by not clarifying the relationship between the proposal and a possible cable car development. Several representors (e.g. 138, 395) outlined details of a cable car route,

224A. Referral of representations to Commission The Trust, within 30 days after receiving any representations under section 24(7)(c) or within any further period that the Minister allows, is to forward to the Commission – (a) a copy of all representations received under section 24; and (b) a report containing – (i) a summary of the representations; and (ii)the Trust's opinion on the merits of the representations including whether or not it believes the representations to be of sufficient merit to warrant modification of the plan; and (iii) a summary of any proposed modification to the plan; and (iv)any additional information that the Trust considers relevant.

Review 7 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area concerned about the ensuing lack of privacy and hazards. One representor (199) stated that the amendment should not be considered without considering a cable car proposal. Another (216) believed that the proposal was too soon after the approval of the Management Plan and failed to respect the lengthy consultation process recently undertaken. Other representors raised different issues that were all addressed by the one response below. Trust’s response The wide variety of issues raised elicited this, or a similar, general response from the Trust: As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on its assessment and submits its report and all the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review. The final decision on the draft Amending Plan is not made until the Trust has considered the report from the Commission. Panel’s findings The Panel considers that the Trust’s comment, as a general comment in the context of the process being undertaken, is acceptable. However, when submitted as a response to the specific issues raised above (and others), the Panel finds that this response is inadequate as it did not attempt to address those particular issues. The Panel also considers that the Trust’s general response is misleading in that it implies that the Commission has a broader review scope than that discussed in 2.1.1 above.

2.3 Specific representors’ issues and the Trust’s responses 2.3.1 Proposed amendment not furthering or considering the vision and objectives of the Management Plan Representations Several representations, including 417 and HCC (474) noted that the Draft Plan failed to explain how the proposed amendment considered or furthered the vision, principles and objectives of the Management Plan. Trust’s response The Trust did not appear to address how the proposed amendment furthered the vision, principles and objectives of the Management Plan in any of its responses. It did set out in its Summary in its report that it considered the proposed amendment did meet these criteria, although provided no evidence or discussion in support of that statement. Panel’s findings The Panel is concerned that the Trust has not explicitly responded to representors’ concerns about how, or even whether, the proposed amendment addresses the vision, principles and objectives of the Management Plan, but rather, responded obliquely with a discussion about the process being undertaken. The Panel therefore finds the Trust’s responses to these concerns as inadequate. 2.3.2 Reasons for proposed amendment Many representors were primarily concerned that the Trust had provided no explanation or reasons for the proposal and Draft Plan. Some also queried whether the Trust’s proposed

8 Review Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area amendment would be in accordance with the Judicial Review Act 2000 (JR Act). However, the Trust contended that the Act does not require it to provide reasons when proposing an amendment to a Management Plan. Representations At least 66 representors (e.g. 105, 144, 246, 367, 486, 517, 521) were concerned that the Trust had provided no background or reasons for its proposed amendment, other than a description and accompanying map of the boundary extension. Other representors (267, 284, 390, 464, 523) drew attention to the provisions under section 5 of the JR Act which require reasons to be provided when making a decision, and section 17 (2)(b) which provides the grounds upon which a decision can be reviewed under that Act. Trust’s response The Trust claimed that the Act does not require reasons to be provided when it is proposing to amend a Management Plan, and that the absence of reasons does not invalidate the statutory process. It did acknowledge that providing reasons for a proposed amendment may help public understanding of the proposal. However, it did not offer further explanation for the current proposal, in the context of this particular issue. The Trust did not respond to submissions about the JR Act. The Trust reiterated that it had exhibited the proposed amendment to give the public an opportunity to comment on how it perceives the extension to the PSA may affect the values described in the Management Plan. Panel’s findings As far as the Trust’s advice that the Act does not require reasons for the proposed amendment, the Trust’s response is considered adequate. However, as the Trust acknowledged at the hearing, the Panel considers that it would have been helpful to provide reasons for the proposal in the initial documents released for public comment. The Panel notes that the Trust did not respond to comments alleging possible contravention of provisions for decision making under the JR Act. For this reason, the Panel therefore finds that the Trust’s responses to those concerns to be inadequate. 2.3.3 Development in proposed extended PSA is contrary to Management Plan and will adversely affect conservation values Representations Many representors were concerned that any development in the proposed amendment area would be contrary to the purposes of the Management Plan (e.g.95,103, 213, 244, 341, Australian Plants Society [APS] 392, CCT 421, ROCC 426, 443, 486, 538, 541), and would adversely affect a range of conservation values, including flora, fauna, geoheritage, cultural heritage and threatened species. In particular, representor 382 considered that without an adequate assessment of the proposed amendment against biodiversity values, that the proposal was not in accordance with section 5.2.3(4) Biodiversity of the Management Plan. Trust’s response The Trust noted that there are mechanisms in the Management Plan to protect conservation values and that these would not be changed by the proposed amendment. It considered, in any case, that these values are not unique to the proposed extension of the PSA and may also occur within the existing PSA. In addition, the ‘same standards would apply to any

Review 9 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area developments in the extended pinnacle specific area as in the current pinnacle specific area’. It also noted that any development proposal within the existing or extended PSA would be assessed against all standards of the Management Plan. Again, the Trust responded that until an actual development proposal is received, any impacts on values cannot be fully assessed. The Trust advised at the public hearing that, at one of its meetings, it had considered potential effects on conservation values including European and Aboriginal heritage, threatened species and communities, geomorphic values (including the Organ Pipes) and visual impacts. Risks and hazards were also identified. The Trust concluded that there were no site constraints that would make the area unsuitable for any of the developments or uses which are allowable in the PSA. Panel’s findings The Panel notes the Trust’s acknowledgement, at the hearing, that it had considered the proposed amendment against a range of Park values, risks and hazards. However, as detailed evidence of such was not provided in the documentation initially provided to the public when seeking comment, nor in the Trust’s report to the Commission, the Panel finds that the Trust’s responses to consideration of the values to be inadequate. It is therefore not clear to the Panel that the Trust has considered that the protection of the values of that area of the Natural Zone will be safeguarded, or that the values are not of Natural Zone ‘quality’, and would be better rezoned as PSA. The Panel agrees with the Trust that, with hindsight, such information could have been provided in its documentation to the public, either initially, or in its report to the Commission. Moreover, the Panel finds that it is an inadequate response to note that the Management Plan standards would be the same in any extended PSA as in the current PSA. Whilst technically correct, this does not respond to the representations that either state or imply that the standards are currently different in the proposed extension area, being part of the Natural Zone, and which will therefore change, if the proposal is successful. The Panel also notes that no representor claimed that the standards in any extended PSA would differ to those in the current PSA. The Panel finds that it is an inadequate response to omit consideration on how possible developments and uses might affect particular values of the proposed extension. The Panel considers that the Trust could reasonably identify which developments and uses might eventuate in this area, and discuss effects of those on the values, which are set out in the Management Plan. 2.3.4 Inadequate reasons for boundary choice Representations Representors (e.g. 264, 283, 382) were concerned that the specific boundary delineation for the proposed amendment was not in accordance with section 12.4.3 Policy and Actions of the Management Plan3. Representor 382 noted that the current boundary is based upon

3 12.4 3. Whenever any Park zone boundaries are being considered for change, where possible define boundaries that facilitate better management of the Park’s values, which will generally accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, and/or water catchment boundaries.

10 Review Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

‘recognisable geomorphic and land use features’, whereas the proposed boundary appears ‘to simply comprise exactly what a private developer has requested and does not accord with Section 12.4.’ Trust’s response The Trust maintained that there are no suitable geomorphic or land use features or catchment boundaries that could provide a suitable boundary in this instance, and noted that the current PSA boundary is based upon the location of existing developments, rather than natural features. It concluded that since the proposed boundary is adjacent to existing development, it would result in future development being clustered and therefore facilitate better management of the Park. Panel’s findings The Panel considers that the Trust has not fully answered the representor’s concerns about the boundary delineation being based upon a developer’s needs, rather than natural features, as required in the Management Plan. However, the Panel recognises that the provision states that it is only where possible that boundaries will generally accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, and/or water catchment boundaries, and accepts that in this instance, other factors may have been more important. Nevertheless, as this appears to have been the case, the Panel finds that the Trust could have better explained the boundary choice, particularly in terms of the site’s values. As such, it is considered that the Trust’s response was inadequate, with regard to the representor’s specific concerns. 2.3.5 Pinnacle Specific Area already extended in recent Management Plan Representations Some 37 representors (e.g. 1, 97, 199, 237, 295, 360, 382, ROCC 426, 486, Mountain Preservation Society 501) contended that, since the PSA area was already considerably expanded in the recent full review of the Management Plan, there was no need for this current amendment. Trust’s response The Trust, in its response, described the proposed extension area, including what the current zoning allows and if the area becomes rezoned as PSA, the potential for approval of several discretionary categories (which are currently prohibited in the Natural Zone). It outlined that any proposal would still be required to undergo assessments as set out in the Management Plan. In addition, the Trust noted that opinions regarding the necessity of an extended PSA or not are somewhat subjective and varied. Panel’s findings The Panel finds the Trust’s response to this issue inadequate. The Trust provided no comment on the capacity of the existing PSA to accommodate the MWCC’s concept, as an alternative to pursuing the current proposal. As in 2.6 above, the Trust could have provided comment on the values of the area, as evidence to support its proposal.

Review 11 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

2.3.6 Wellington Park is a special place Representations Many representations (e.g. 100, 13, 125, 240, 248, 269, 288, 311, 355, 362, 458, 483, 519) considered that Wellington Park is a special place for reasons including peace and quiet, wilderness qualities, unspoilt beauty, and that these qualities would be jeopardised if a cable car eventuated. Trust’s response The Trust noted that the Management Plan emphasises the intrinsic and spiritual values held by many with regard to the Park and to the mountain, in particular. It acknowledged that these values are deeply held by some and are hard to define and describe. The Trust also considered that others more strongly relate to the recreational experiences the Park offers rather than to its spiritual presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of these values. The Management Plan aims to recognise and balance these values and they would be part of the Trust’s consideration of any proposed developments in the Park, where such values are considered and protected through the set standards for use and development. Panel’s findings The Panel accepts the Trust’s response in terms of the Management Plan accommodating a wide range of representors’ views about the mountain. However, it considers that, as under 2.3.3 above, the Trust could have elaborated on the effects on the qualities (as described by the Trust), some of which would be classed as values, of the proposed extension area if the zoning is changed and some currently prohibited uses and developments are then permitted. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Trust’s response to this issue is incomplete and therefore inadequate. 2.3.7 The Springs is a more appropriate site for development Representations Twenty representors considered that The Springs was a more appropriate site for any development and should be clearly preferred over The Pinnacle site (e.g. 112, 199, 241, 269, 391, TasWater 455, 493, 518). In addition, HCC (474) noted its policy to strongly support The Springs as the preferred development site. Trust’s response The Trust drew attention to the Management Plan which recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor service, which it identified as in keeping with HCC policy on the matter. However, it also noted that the vast majority of visitors to the Park wish to go to the summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. The Plan allows for consideration of any development proposal that fits within ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the PSA The Trust also noted that the Draft Plan does not increase the range of developments that could be considered in the PSA, nor change the preference for visitor facilities at The Springs. At the public hearing, the Trust reiterated that visitation data were desirable, but did not propose to gather these in the foreseeable future and that the lack of such was not an impediment to finalising the Draft Plan.

12 Review Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Panel’s findings The Panel accepts the Trust’s response that the Management Plan (section 3.3.1, p 41) nominates The Springs as ‘a focal point for visitor and management services and facilities’, and that the Trust acknowledges the HCC policy position regarding The Springs. The Panel also notes that the Management Plan recommends that ‘a comprehensive visitation strategy would assist this type of debate in the future, especially when underpinned by statistically valid data’ (section 7.2.1). However, the Panel considers that, for strategic planning purposes, such data might better inform the need for any extension to the PSA. In conclusion, the Panel considers that the Trust’s response to this issue is largely adequate, but that a commitment to more strategic visitation data collection, as discussed in the Management Plan would be helpful in future decision making.

3.0 Conclusion The Commission’s delegated Panel conducted its review of the Trust’s report on the Draft Plan and the representations, as set out under section 24A of the Act. The Panel’s review was restricted to considering the adequacy of the Trust’s responses to the representations. The Panel considered all the representations, in light of the Trust’s report. The Panel found that the Trust had not adequately summarised all the representations, and that these omissions resulted in no responses to some issues raised. It is also not clear from the Trust’s report as to whether it had considered the merits of each representation. Therefore the Panel found that, in relation to section 24A(b)(ii) of the Act, the Trust‘s responses did not include an opinion on the merits of the representations as to whether the representations are of sufficient merit, or not to warrant modification of the Draft Plan. Whilst the Panel found that the Trust had adequately responded to many of the issues raised in the representations, it found that a number of significant matters were inadequately addressed by the Trust, as expanded upon in this report.

Review 13 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Appendices

14 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Appendix 1: List of Representors 1 Michael Berry 49 Stuart Heggie 2 Michael Shea 50 Attila Karsszon 3 Katie Martin 51 Sophia Atkinson 4 Jahanna Mapley 52 Steve Isaac 5 Geoffrey Young 53 Alison Wiss 6 Ross & Anne Hutchinson 54 Greg Shaw 7 Mika Pallari 55 David Brookfield 8 Brenden Bromfield 56 Michael Laing 9 Anne Sproule 57 Naomi Clarkson 10 Ray Sawford 58 Wayne Clarkson 11 Nick Peterson 59 Ric Crouch 12 Michael McMillan 60 Timothy Denholm 13 John Celesti 61 Darren Brown 14 Andrew Cunningham 62 Ben Poprawski 15 Ecaterina Molnar 63 Benjamin Nolan 16 Emma Aorangi 64 Tony Dykes 17 Paul Molnar 65 Reid Daniels 18 Jane Hamilton Foster 66 Richard Hannan 19 Jayden Clark 67 Ian Slater 20 Tania Poultney 68 Christopher Jarvis 21 Suzanne Bruce 69 Joanne Doyle 22 Warren White 70 Callum Jarvis 23 Melissa Cross 71 Katherine Dawson 24 Scott Goodwin 72 Jessica Quin 25 Patrick Galloway 73 Gail Smith 26 Rohan Langford 74 Jared Mendham 27 Ross Turner 75 Jane Burrell 28 Richard Colman 76 Suzanne Feike 29 Darren Adams 77 Anne Cordts 30 Graham Murray 78 Ryan Woolford 31 Stephanie Bagshaw 79 Margaret Di Giovinazzo 32 Charles Gregory 80 Andrew Wilson 33 Belinda Brannam 81 Becky Shrimpton 34 Dwaine McMaugh 82 Helen Brookfield 35 Mark Newcombe 83 John Brookfield 36 Melanie Barton 84 David Wise 37 Matthew Atkinson 85 Andrew Morgan 38 Kim Sellers 86 Megan Killion-Richardson 39 Leah Eyre 87 Erika Celsi 40 Benjamin Martin 88 Mark De Jong 41 Allison Wilson 89 Emma Whitehead 42 Christopher Johnson 90 Sadie Roberts 43 David McCambridge 91 Michael Martyn 44 Tim Collins 92 Michael Hughes 45 Stuart Gay 93 Roel Van Steenis 46 Katalin EszesneOrosz 94 Samuel Allen 47 Judith O’Doherty 95 Doug Bruce 48 Andrew Nettlefold 96 Peter Cusick

Appendices 15 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

97 Philip Stigant 147 Alwyn Johnson 98 Charles Rankin 148 Vicky Bonwick 99 Alasdair Doyle 149 Gabrielle Phillips 100 Jane Harvey 150 Sarah Peck 101 Stephen Bunton 151 David Seymour 102 Carrie-Ann Smith 152 Joanna Dean 103 Helen Row 153 Patricia Corby 104 Quentin Hanich 154 Todd Herriott 105 Chris Harries 155 Simone Walters 106 Sarah Neal 156 Margaret Allison 107 Raewyn McNamara 157 Phill Lengyel 108 Anton Rosenzweig 158 Timothy Price 109 Sharon Connolly 159 Geoffrey Lewis 110 Grant Mullen 160 Martin Penicka 111 Martin Krause 161 Daniel Mendes 112 Abigail Rea 162 Heath Parkinson 113 Anita Pryor 163 Adam Donoghue 114 Fiona Perrin 164 Emily Escapule 115 Michael Jones 165 Imogen Liew 116 Susie Knott 166 Shane Rayner 117 Susie Knott 167 Mirja Hynninen 118 Jane Northrop 168 Kirsty Officer 119 Roger Lorenz 169 Laura Bussolini 120 Marie-Luce Chevalier 170 Jack McMahon 121 Susan Westcott 171 Andrew Gibson 122 Susie Greenhill 172 Rowena & Chivers 123 Claire Burnet Jason 124 Jacob Wilkinson 173 Paul Ritchie 125 Andrew Doube 174 Calisto Cleaver 126 Elida Assenheimer 175 Samantha Buxton 127 Martin Eijkelenborg 176 Ian McConaghy 128 Desmond Huynh 177 Anthony Meer 129 Almar Postma 178 Elizabeth Story 130 Kade Wilson 179 Rick Monty 131 Julian Bowring 180 Matt Wiggins 132 Matt Ross 181 Alice Graham 133 Michael Rowe 182 Andrew Fyfe 134 Ben Lane 183 Nathan Griffin 135 Catherine Merrigan 184 Caroline Walch 136 Jan Walker 185 Michelle Morgan 137 Geoff Watson 186 Luke Morgan 138 Nick Tompson 187 Jenny Sprent 139 Eugene Mak 188 Graham Banister 140 Mila Rich 189 Andrew Rankin 141 Ryan Weller 190 Jacky Purves 142 Jayne Donnelly 191 Sean Mennitz 143 Mike Forward 192 Ben Marris 144 Gladys Seymour 193 Tim McCabe 145 Astrid Miller 194 Wendy Christie 146 Martyn Tilse 195 Camille Barton

16 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

196 Jeremy Smith 246 Michael Easton 197 Peter Grant 247 Tony Rae 198 Pippa Johnstone 248 Greg Brown 199 Ted Cutlan 249 Mark Flood 200 David Andrew 250 Prudence Bonham 201 Christine Stirling 251 Ian Alston 202 Danny MacGregor 252 Jason Turvey 203 Amber Kemp 253 Paul Wagner 204 Melinda Reid 254 John Higgins 205 Jade Gric 255 Nathan Chilcott 206 Andrew Horner 256 Jane Higgins 207 Sonia Scott 257 Sebastian Sullivan 208 Craig Bellgrove 258 Ken Johnson 209 Lucas Chamberlain 259 Josh McDonald 210 Luke Jones 260 Carl Parr 211 Samantha Drotsky 261 Lauren Parr 212 Donovan Drotsky 262 David Witcomb 213 Astrid Wright 263 Rebecca Hubbard 214 Robert Richardson 264 Bill Russell 215 Andrew Burns 265 Penny Cooper 216 Annie Phillips 266 Jennifer Ford 217 Cheryl Cushion 267 Paul Turner 218 Michael Wadsley 268 C Gregory 219 Steven Mutton 269 Rosemary Costin 220 Gail Robertson 270 Harry Sewell 221 Denis Paul 271 * * 222 Carlie Trotter 272 Charles Prevost 223 Christopher Beis 273 W K Roberts 224 Sheila Reynolds 274 Sue Lafferty 225 Michael Powe 275 Rachel Andrew 226 Richard Stafford 276 Greg Linton 227 Richard Stafford 277 Tanya Denison 228 Tony McKenny 278 Martin Silsby 229 Heather McKenny 279 Mitchell Scarr 230 Ben Kuiper 280 Rod & Wendy Kerr 231 Rhys Filbee 281 Paul Reece 232 Trevor Sullivan 282 David Halse Rogers 233 Richard Grubb 283 Hank Betrude 234 David Smith 284 Bill Wright 235 Daniel Bernal 285 Andrew Palmer 236 Louise Rigozzi 286 Philip Robinson 237 Andy Cianchi 287 Jen Woodward 238 Harry Friend 288 Miles Gray 239 Bruce Champion 289 Lucy Hawthorne 240 John Cannon 290 Chris Waller 241 Nicole Duncan 291 Julia Clark 242 Sue Meares 292 Nicholas Dening 243 Lou-anne Barker 293 Sebastian Burgess 244 Philip Muir 294 Sue * 245 Tim Smith 295 Robyn Brake

Appendices 17 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

296 Colette McKiernan 346 Bishwa Oakes 297 John Reece 347 Michael Comfort 298 Anita Halbe 348 Samuel Poynter 299 Rod Force 349 Philip Gorman 300 Jacqui Eastgate-Ryan 350 Linda Kirkwood 301 Daniel Ryan 351 Loraine Perrins 302 Tom Reece 352 Tom and Robin Errey 303 Simon Morey 353 Prue Waters 304 J & M Grist 354 Margaret Bennett 305 Christine Needham 355 Sheila Stones 306 Dawn Simpson 356 Brian Walter 307 Barry Ford 357 John Sampson 308 Ed Kleywegt 358 Jill Nolan 309 Bill Slattery 359 Jan Foley 310 Marie Tennant 360 Ben Jones 311 Robert Fleming 361 Peter Turner 312 Linden Woodward 362 Izabel Lasiuk 313 Dan Burnaby 363 Luca Vanzino 314 Michaela Guest 364 Jan Dabrowski 315 Emma Gunn 365 Chando Steiner 316 Mal & Karen Mars 366 Geo. & Priscilla Park 317 Rosie Hippel 367 Stephen Bennett 318 Bill Godfrey 368 Zanna Laws 319 Robert Moore 369 Glenda Hosking 320 Marnie Slaghuis 370 Mieke Van Elten 321 Michael Long 371 Lauren Black 322 Tony Thurstans 372 David Crichton-Gill 323 Gregory Middleton 373 Janina Skelton 324 Nicole Parums 374 Dion Lester 325 John Biggs 375 Anthony Nolan 326 Simon Little 376 Haig Rice 327 Jemery Day 377 Rebecca Foweraker 328 Prue Slatyer 378 Wilfred Fletcher 329 Martin Randle 379 Clare McIntyre 330 Allan Fawcett 380 Kristi Ellingsen 331 Ralph Middenway 381 Karen Johnson 332 Aina Dambitis 382 Jarrah Vercoe 333 Richard Climie 383 Geoffrey Lea 334 Mike Willson 384 Kaylene Allan 335 Mark Maumill 385 Jacob Wilkinson 336 Annette Horsler 386 Wendy Auchincloss 337 Rob Beedham 387 Millie Rooney 338 Jean Symes 388 Stephen McEldowney 339 Nathan Sidney 389 David Halse Rogers 340 Hilary Cane 390 anonymous anonymous 341 Tom Polachek 391 Janet Clippingdale 342 John Lockwood 392 Sib Corbett 343 Julia Greenhill 393 Jean Jackson 344 Keith Corbett 394 Ben Jones 345 Carol Bristow 395 Nick Tompson

18 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

396 Rosemary Sandford 446 David Whyte 397 Kay Sigrist 447 Richard Bold 398 Simon Collins 448 Nick Williams 399 Katy Thomas 449 Richard Hale 400 Anita Oakley 450 Derek Verrall 401 Rob Blakers 451 Sonny Kapoor 402 Jeffrey Thomas 452 Gillian Fitzgerald 403 Stuart Williams 453 Joscelyn Bruno 404 Di Elliffe 454 Mary Jolly 405 Marie Ayre 455 Michael Brewster 406 April Krause 456 David Rogers 407 Lee Douglas 457 Marie Heath 408 Patrick Oakley 457 Keith Millard 409 Alison Hetherington 457 Pamela Young 410 Oliver Heyward 457 Di Morse 411 Jessica White 457 Ali Deegan 412 Mathew Charlton 457 Steve Masri (?) 413 Phoebe Wonder 457 Tim Heath 414 Kathryn Godman 457 Julia Pasenen 415 Adam Muyt 457 G M Daly 416 Aniela Grun 457 Gareth Walker 417 Caroline Walch 457 Lyn Gowans 418 Geoff Law 457 Julian Heath 419 Serena Rule 457 Jeremy Heath 420 David James 457 Will Lee 421 Jon Nermut 458 Barbara Crosswell 422 Sharon Heritage 459 Michael Meredith 423 Liila * 460 Kevin Doran 424 Nicholas Sawyer 461 Hazel Doran 425 Dylan Sutton 462 John Harbinson 426 Ted Cutlan 463 A Costin 427 Michael Davis 464 Robert Rands 428 Gavin Cooneys 465 Lindsay Brinsdon 429 Anna Reynolds 466 Robert Hamilton 430 Ben Badham 467 Amber Woods 431 Andrew Simpson 468 Sandra Woodward 432 Bradley Chamberlain 469 Jera Coram 433 Michael Swanton 470 Fiona Forward 434 Simon Enman 471 Deborah Terry 435 Kristina Paterson 472 Bruce Terry 436 Janet Fraser 473 Brian Collin 437 Luke Witt 474 Nick Heath 438 Michael Itchins 475 Robert MacDonald 439 James Risbey 476 Catherine Fitzpatrick 440 Carmel Denholm 477 Michael Roberts 441 Steven Dale 478 Rowanne Brown 442 Jo Macgill 479 Matthew Johnson 443 Mark Redmond 480 Aaron Hooper 444 Audrey Moore 481 Keith Wales 445 Justin Lawson 482 Ross Giblin

Appendices 19 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

483 Elizabeth Brettingham- 532 Lyall McDermott Moore 533 Stephanie Gleeson 484 Andrew Grosse 534 Richard Glazebrook 485 Jason Turvey 535 Jenny Quach 486 Anne McConnell 536 Brad Williams 487 Robert White 537 Tom Reid 488 John Fischer 538 Hannah Clark 489 Toby Rowallan 539 Phil Bayley 490 Una Harbinson 540 Tony Waller 491 Colin Chick 541 Bruce Paterson 492 John Chick 542 Anne McConnell 493 Nick Barta 543 Jane Burrell 494 Adrian Bold 544 Brendan Fuller 495 Annie Beecroft 545 Samuel Matthews 496 Al Adams 546 Nick Tompson 497 Karen Maher 547 Nick Gust 598 Adam Steer 548 Charles Holmes 499 Adam Foster 549 Craig Deayton 500 Kate Foster 550 Roger Proctor 501 Bernard Lloyd 551 Vicki Turvey 502 Douglas Nichols 503 Don Knowler 504 Frances Murray 505 Frances Verrier 506 David Tate 507 Danielle Gray 508 Melanie Archer 509 Alan Gray 510 Vanessa Wills 511 Charles Elliott 512 Matt Picone 513 Paul Hutchins 514 Peter Steane 515 Fiona Perrin 516 John Moore 517 Ray Murphy 518 Catherine Errey 519 Erica Burgess 520 Cuan Petheram 521 Jennifer Scott 522 Joy Stones 523 Chris Cooper 524 Derek Andrew 525 Michael Hitchcock 526 Sarah Martin 527 Peter Rollings 528 David Lamb 529 Lilian Andrew 530 Cassy O’Connor 531 Pamela Balon

20 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Appendix 2: List of representors at the hearing

Rep. Name Representing No. 474 Mr Matt Lindus Hobart City Council 474 Ms Kirsten Turner Hobart City Council 97 Mr Adam Beeson Phil Stigant 97 Mr Phil Stigant ROCC (Residents Opposing the Cable Car) 367 Dr Stephen Bennett self 382 Mr JarrahVercoe self 534 Mr Richard Glazebrook self 199 Mr Ted Cutlan ROCC 114 Ms Fiona Perrin ROCC N/A Miss Madeleine Carter self 494 Mr Adrian Bold Mount Wellington Cableway Company N/A Mr Warren Soundy self N/A Mr Sebastian Marquez self 433 Mr Michael Swanton New Town Rivulet Catchment Care Group Inc.

Wellington Park Management Trust: Dr Christine Mucha Chair Mr Axel von Krusenstierna Manager

Appendices 21 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Appendix 3: Report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission on Representations Received

22 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

SUMMARY This report represents the Trust’s response to the issues raised in representations received on a draft Amending Plan that proposes to extend the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area in the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (WPMP). The amendment proposes adding approximately 1.1 hectares to the Pinnacle Specific Area to the east of the existing observation shelter. This is an approximate 13% increase in the area of the Pinnacle Specific Area. The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development proposal in the extension area that fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3 in chapter 8 of the WPMP. The area covered by the draft Amending Plan is currently in the Natural Zone in the WPMP. The Natural Zone does not allow for commercial developments but does allow for “infrastructure associated with potential transport modes”. The Trust received 551 representations during the public exhibition of the draft Amending Plan and they have been considered in accordance with s 24A of the Wellington Park Act 1993. Two agencies responded stating that they would not be making a formal representation. After considering the representations received, the Trust’s preliminary opinion is that it believes the proposed amendment to the WPMP is consistent with the vision, principles and objectives of the WPMP. The Trust will review its preliminary opinion upon receipt of the Planning Commission’s report before making a final decision on whether to submit the Amending Plan to the Governor for approval in accordance with s 23 of the Wellington Park Act 1993. Most representations assumed that a cable car development was the reason for the draft Amending Plan, though this was not stated in the accompanying documentation. Many representations simply stated their support or opposition to the draft Amending Plan and/or to a cable car without giving any reasons. Others provided reasons as to why they supported or opposed a cable car and by inference the proposed amendment to the WPMP. The main issues raised are summarised below along with the Trust’s proposed response. Summary of general issues raised in representations on the draft Amending Plan and the Trust’s proposed response

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response

A No information/studies or The implication being made is that the process of amending the analysis provided to explain or management plan is invalid unless reasons are given for justify why this proposed proposed changes. Although providing reasons for a proposed amendment should proceed. amendment may help the public understand why the Trust is This does not allow for considering the proposal, this is not a requirement of the Act and informed debate and may an absence of justification for a proposed change to the WPMP contravene the provisions for does not invalidate the process set out in the Wellington Park decision making in the Judicial Act. Review Act 2000. The proposed amendment to the WPMP has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on how it perceives the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the Plan. As required in s 24A of the Act the Trust informs its opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on its assessment and submits its report and all the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission

Appendices 23 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response for review. The final decision on the draft Amending Plan is not made until the Trust has considered the report from the Commission.

B Development in the proposed Section 1.1 (a) Purpose of the WPMP, states that the Park is amendment area is contrary reserved for the purpose of recreational and tourism uses and to the purposes of the opportunities consistent with the purposes specified in Wellington Park Management paragraphs (b) to (e), which relate to the protection of various Plan 2013, particularly the fauna, flora, landscape and cultural values as well as water protection of Park values. catchment values. A tourist use complies with this purpose but whether it meets purpose (a), consistent with purposes (b) to (e) and then also meets the appropriate guidelines and standards of the WPMP can only be made when an actual proposal for that use is received and a full assessment can be conducted. The guiding statements and standards contained in the WPMP are included in order to assist in making decisions around various proposals for use and development in the Park as well as for guiding ongoing management activities. In reality a continuous balancing of these objectives occurs as decisions are made on specific uses and developments. The Trust’s view is that the mechanisms for protecting the values of the Park when considering proposed development have been incorporated into the WPMP and are not being changed by this proposed amendment. The same standards would apply to any developments in the extended pinnacle specific area as in the current pinnacle specific area. Development proposals that do not meet the requirements of the WPMP would be rejected.

C The proposed amendment is The purposes for which the Park was established in section 5 of contrary to the Wellington the Act provide the basis for the WPMP and assist the Trust in Park Act 1993, particularly the making decisions around various proposals for use and purposes for which it was set development in the Park as well as guiding ongoing management aside in section 5 of the Act. activities. This requires a balancing of these purposes when Also questions as to whether decisions are made on particular uses and developments. The the public can trust the Trust Trust believes the standards for use and development in the to be fair in its assessment of various zones in the Park. as set out in the WPMP, will ensure the draft Amending Plan. that development proposals conform to the purposes for which the Park was reserved in section 5 of the Act. As these would apply to the proposed extension, the Trust does not see how it could be contrary to section 5 of the Act. Should a development be proposed for the area, it would be up to a development proponent to demonstrate compliance. Under section 24 of the Act the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an amendment to the WPMP. The process for doing this is set out in sections 24A, 24B, 24C and 24D of the Act and requires the Trust to ask for and consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and inform its final decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor. The Trust is considering the draft Amending Plan using this process.

D In the WPMP chapter 12, There are no geomorphic and land use features and/or water s.12.4 Policy and Actions (3) catchment boundaries that the Trust considers would provide an

24 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response states: ‘Whenever any Park appropriate zone boundary in the vicinity of the Pinnacle Specific zone boundaries are being Area. In fact, the existing Pinnacle Specific Area boundary is considered for change, where based on the location of existing developments rather than possible define boundaries natural features. The proposed boundary extension is adjacent that facilitate better to existing developments and in so far as it would allow future management of the Park’s developments to be located close to existing ones, the Trust values, which will generally believes it will help facilitate better management of Park values. accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, and/or water catchment boundaries.’ The proposed boundary extension does not comply with this requirement of the WPMP.

E No extension to the Pinnacle The proposed extension would add an additional 1.1 hectares to Specific Area boundary is the Pinnacle Specific Area. The area of land that is the subject of needed as it already the proposed amendment is currently zoned ‘Natural.’ This zone comprises a significant area, already allows for ‘infrastructure associated with Potential which was only recently Transport Modes’ to be considered but prohibits ‘Food Services,’ extended in the Wellington ‘Tourism Operation’s and ‘Park Management Office.’ The Park Management Plan 2013. amendment would include this land in the Pinnacle Specific Area and would allow for any development which fits into the three currently prohibited categories to become discretionary and be able to be considered. Any proposal would still be required to meet all of the relevant assessment criteria and standards in the WPMP. Whether the proposed extension to the amendment area is necessary or not is a matter of judgement based on the level of facilities a person considers appropriate for them to have a desired experience on the mountain. As can be seen from the representations this varies considerably from person to person. The Trust’s view is that, as the proposed extension is adjacent to existing developments (the observation shelter and lookouts) it provides a greater opportunity to cluster developments in order to avoid spreading impacts.

F Development in the proposed The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is extension area will be clearly within an area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management visible from Hobart and Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ detrimental to the visual and Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the natural values of the Park, Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require particularly the Organ Pipes. a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development in the WPMP. The same study also identified the proposed extension as having “high scenic quality”, however this was a park-wide assessment with low resolution (the observation shelter and lookouts are in the area identified as ‘high scenic quality’) and the study itself states that: “Preparation of specific visual impact analyses for any development of scale should be a requirement of any proposal approval process. In the case of larger scale development, more specific seen view analyses will be required beyond those from the representative viewpoints analysed by the current study.

Appendices 25 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response Nonetheless the findings herein should provide a first order guide to the sensitivity of sites to development and the potential for visual impacts.” Some representations considered that providing the additional area for developments would allow them to reduce their visual impact. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made.

G Wellington Park seen as a The WPMP gives strong regard to the intrinsic and spiritual special place for varying values held by many with regard to the Park and to kunanyi / reasons including “peace and Mount Wellington in particular. The representations indicate quiet”, “wilderness” qualities, that these values are deeply held by some and by their very “unspoilt beauty”, a remedy nature are hard to define and describe. For some any man-made for ‘nature deficit disorder’ structure impacts on their sense of spiritual attachment to the etc. This would be impacted mountain. For others it seems to be more of a sliding scale and on by developments like a they are happy to allow for some sensitive development. Others cable car. more strongly relate to the recreational experiences the Park offers rather than to its spiritual presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of these values. The WPMP attempts to recognise and balance these values and they would be part of the Trust’s consideration of any proposed developments in the Park. The Trust’s view is that these values are considered and protected through the standards for use and development in the WPMP. This may be a reason for rejecting particular developments within the proposed addition, as in the rest of the Pinnacle Specific Area, but is not a reason to reject the draft Amending Plan.

H Development in the proposed The WPMP provides strong protections for Park values and these extension area will impact on are not being changed in the draft Amending Plan. These values flora/fauna/cultural heritage are not unique to the proposed extension of the Pinnacle and geoheritage values Specific Area and may also occur within the existing Pinnacle including threatened species. Specific Area. Any development proposal within the existing or extended Pinnacle Specific Area would be assessed against all of the relevant guidelines, policies and standards of the WPMP. Until an actual development proposal is received, any impacts on Park values cannot be fully assessed. Developments that don’t comply with the standards for use and development in the Pinnacle Specific Area in S2.6 of chapter 8B of the WPMP would be rejected.

I The Springs is a more The WPMP recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor appropriate area for services but also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to development the Park seek to go to the summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. Therefore the WPMP also allows for consideration of any development proposal that fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. The draft Amending Plan does not increase the range of developments that could be considered in the Pinnacle Specific Area nor change the preference for visitor facilities at The Springs. The draft Amending Plan will allow more scope for

26 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response choosing appropriate development sites within the Pinnacle Specific Area which already has a number of constraints due to existing developments.

J Development at the Pinnacle The road to the Pinnacle is closed at times of extreme weather - is unviable given the frequent usually ice or snow conditions and also in times of extreme wind wind and cloud conditions or fire risk. Restrictions on access and the effects of extreme weather conditions that can occur on kunanyi / Mount Wellington would need to be considered by anybody proposing a commercial development in the Pinnacle Specific Area. The proposed boundary extension is possibly less exposed to extreme weather than the rest of the Pinnacle Specific Area and may provide a safer location for some developments.

K Changing the management The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington plan at the request of one Park Act 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can developer sets a dangerous initiate an amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the planning precedent and is Trust to ask for and consider the merits of representations on poor planning practice any proposed amendments and make its decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor. The Trust does not make its final decision until it has considered the report from the Commission. The Trust has made it clear that, although it received a request to consider the proposed boundary change, it has not received any development proposal that includes the proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area and does not endorse any particular development for this area. The Trust feels it has a responsibility to ensure that any future developments in the Pinnacle Specific Area are in the best location to minimise impacts on Park values.

L Development in the proposed Until an actual development application is submitted, it is not extension of the Pinnacle possible to meaningfully assess its possible impacts. Specific Area would have Any development proposals for the Pinnacle Specific Area would adverse environmental need to comply with the standards for use and development in impacts including noise, litter, S2.6 of chapter 8B of the WPMP. These will determine what pollution, water quality, and developments are approved and their location. construction would risk destabilising the Organ Pipes.

M If the Trust feels that the Expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area to the west would current Pinnacle Specific Area intrude into the North West Bay River Drinking Water Catchment is insufficient in size to allow Area (see Map 5 in the WPMP). for growing visitor numbers, then it should consider expanding that area westwards from the summit rather than down the slope towards Hobart.

N No business case in a broad The representation contends that the real attraction of tourism sense exists for Wellington Park is its uniqueness as a wild area with little expanding commercial development located close to a city and easily accessible. The representation notes that there is no evidence that people are

Appendices 27 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response development in the Park. not visiting the Park because of a lack of facilities and therefore providing more facilities would not increase visitation or ‘value add’ to an already unique experience. There is therefore a risk that inappropriate developments may degrade rather than enhance the experience. Although this representation makes a strong case against further development in the Park, other representors have indicated that they would enjoy the opportunity to sit comfortably in the Park and enjoy a meal, or coffee and cake, and admire the view, and they would bring their friends along. It is obvious from this and other representations that different people have very different views on the values of kunanyi / Mount Wellington. The Trust’s view is that its task, as set out in the WPMP, is to try to balance these competing views in its decision making and that the proposed amendment to the Plan provides scope for clustering developments at the Pinnacle to reduce their potential impacts.

O Development in the proposed There is no evidence that the proposed extension of the Pinnacle extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area would be at any greater risk from bushfires than Specific Area would be at risk the existing Pinnacle Specific Area. from bushfires and increase The standards for use and development in the Pinnacle Specific the risk of fires. The cables Area in S2.6 of chapter 8 of the WPMP require that the bushfire associated with a cable car risks associated with any proposed development be considered. would be a risk to aerial fire fighting appliances.

P The cable car would also The WPMP already allows for ‘infrastructure associated with require development (support Potential Transport Modes’ to be considered in the Natural and towers) within the Natural Recreation Zones within Wellington Park. These would need to Zone. meet the standards for use and development in Chapter 8 of the WPMP.

Q Questions the economic The WPMP requires any proposed commercial development in viability of a cable car given the Park to demonstrate economic sustainability by way of a the significant infrastructure detailed business and financial plan showing at least a five-year costs. projection of operations. The WPMP also states that the Trust’s assessment of economic viability of a proposal will be based upon an assessment of both the proposal’s financial components, and the management and social benefits to the Park as a result of the proposal. The WPMP requires the Trust to ensure that development does not create demands for public investment in physical infrastructure that imposes financial burdens on existing and future generations.

R A cable car would adversely Impacts on other recreational users and businesses operating in affect existing businesses the Park cannot be assessed until a specific development operating in the Park as well proposal with the required studies attached, has been as existing activities such as submitted. Impacts on other recreational and business users are rock climbing and paragliding. always a consideration when any new development or project is

28 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response A cable car would be a risk to being considered. rock climbers if its route runs over climbing areas.

S A cable car would allow for Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 of the WPMP discusses the Sustainable closure of Pinnacle Road and Transport System, endorsed by the Trust in 2009. This system this may be required to make recognises that a primary means of transport for the Park is by a cable car financially viable. private vehicle. Section 9.3.1 indicates that ‘the Trust’s research suggests community support for a fee for vehicle access to the Park via Pinnacle Road, particularly if an alternative transport option were to be provided e.g. a shuttle-bus service.’ The WPMP requires the Trust to ensure that development in the Pinnacle Specific Area provides for access to the Pinnacle and to other parts of Wellington Park in a manner that meets the needs of public users and so as not to cause environmental degradation of any area.

T Amendment supported as it The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable would facilitate development car, although it would allow consideration of a cable car terminal of a cable car (no further in that area. The amendment will allow consideration of any reasons given) development proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP.

U The proposed amendment The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable will facilitate development of car, though it would allow consideration of a cable car terminal better visitor facilities, in that area. The amendment will allow consideration of any particularly a cable car which development proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or will be good for tourism and ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described the economy. in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. The existing Pinnacle Specific Area already allows consideration of a range of visitor facilities.

V The proposed amendment Disabled access is required to be considered for any would facilitate development development and is governed by the Disability Discrimination Act of a cable car that would 1992 and the Building Code of Australia. provide better and safer access to the top of kunanyi / Mount Wellington including disabled access.

W Locating a cable car terminal The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within the proposed within an area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management extension would have less Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ visual impact than other Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the locations within the Pinnacle Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require Specific Area, as it would be a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified below the skyline. person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made.

X The proposed amendment Although there are some issues with larger vehicles passing on would facilitate development some sections of Pinnacle Road no requirement to widen the of a cable car that would road has been identified.

Appendices 29 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Ref Issue Raised Proposed Response improve access to the top of kunanyi / Mount Wellington with minimal environmental impacts. Upgrading Pinnacle Road would cause more damage to the environment than a cable car.

Y The cost of amending the Section 8.2 of the WPMP requires that proponents for private WPMP should be covered by development bear any costs associated with the preparation of the developer, not the Trust documentation required for the assessment of use and as provided for in the WPMP. development proposals and, where relevant, the assessment of such proposals. However no development proposal for the Pinnacle Specific Area or the proposed extension has been received.

Z The Pinnacle Specific Area For some representors the ‘lack’ of development on kunanyi / contains a lot of existing Mount Wellington is part of its attraction and seen as a quality development and is not a needing protection. These representors generally appear pristine area. tolerant of existing developments on the mountain, but don’t want to see any further development. The WPMP recognises this by providing for future development where existing development is concentrated (The Springs and the pinnacle area). The draft Amending Plan extends the area available for development adjacent to the existing observation shelter and lookout platforms and would allow future tourist developments to be concentrated in this area.

ZA The process for assessing the The point being made is that the Trust should not undertake the draft Amending Plan has been process for amending the WPMP until it has a foolproof compromised by the Trust mechanism for verifying representations. Until this is in place accepting multiple the representors felt the process would be open to representations from the manipulation. same person and from Whilst it is acknowledged that a representor can submit more person’s using an alias or not than one representation and can use aliases, this in reality can providing contact details that occur on both sides of the debate and can occur with any form can be verified. of open public consultation. It is not seen as a reason to invalidate the process. The issue for the Trust is more one of relevance. It is considered to be more whether the specifics of the representation made has merit and is supported by the management plan or not, rather than who or how many persons have made a submission, on either side of the debate.

ZB The Trust should be As previously noted the proposed extension would provide more minimising and reducing opportunity to site new developments near existing ones and impacts on the summit not could thereby reduce impacts. extending the development zone and increasing the negative visual and environmental impacts in this area.

30 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

1. Introduction This report represents the Trust’s proposed response to the issues raised in representations received on a draft Amending Plan that proposes to extend the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area in the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (WPMP). The report includes a general overview of comments, a Response Table containing detailed discussion of, and responses to, representations and a summary of issues raised in representations and the Trust’s proposed response to these, and its proposed position on the draft Amending Plan. The report is forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review, pursuant to s 24A of the Wellington Park Act 1993 (the Act). 2. Background The revision of the WPMP approved by the Governor in 2013 expanded the size of the Pinnacle Zone in the Wellington Park Management Plan 2005 as well as increasing the range of uses and developments that could be considered in this area. This was in accord with the Trust’s wish to provide a balanced management approach to ensure the protection of Park values whilst enhancing visitation and the visitor experience. The enlarged zone was called the Pinnacle Specific Area and allows for consideration of the following uses and developments:

 Tourist Operations (use of land specifically to attract tourists): only for visitor centre, interpretation centre, viewing shelter and ancillary uses to the provision of these including limited associated retail.

 Food Services: (use of land for preparing or selling food or drink for consumption on or off the premises): cafe, restaurant and take-away food premises.

 Transport Depot and Distribution (use of land for distributing goods or passengers): only for bus terminal, council depot, or a Potential Transport Mode (‘potential Transport Modes’ means forms of public transport that have the potential to effectively move large numbers of people, but for which little or no infrastructure currently exists in the Park. It includes but is not limited to: shuttle buses; cable cars and aerial ropeways; and funicular rail and cable rail systems).

 Vehicle Parking: only if single storey.

 Utilities: only for telecommunications, electricity generation, transmitting power, transport networks, collecting, treating, transmitting, storing, distributing or disposing of water, sewerage or sullage.

 Storage: only for Park management purposes.

 Natural and Cultural Values Management: o Park management office o Park seating o Toilets o Picnic/BBQ facilities o Viewing shelter/building o Visitor Information/interpretation panels o Lookouts (open air) o Recreation trails and related structures (when endorsed in a Recreation Strategy, Walking Track Strategy or Bike Strategy prepared in accordance with the Management Plan)

Appendices 31 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Chapter 8B of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 deals with uses and developments in the Pinnacle Specific Area and includes rigorous standards for any developments in the Pinnacle Specific Area designed to protect Park values.

Following approaches to Hobart City Council from the Mt Wellington Cableway Company seeking landowner consent, Council wrote to the Trust on 1 May 2014, reaffirming its position that it will only consider development applications that are consistent with the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013. Council’s letter also stated:

“Finally, and without wishing to be directory, the Council acknowledges the ongoing public debate on this project and does encourage the Trust to meet expeditiously in order to advance its position on whether or not to initiate the Pinnacle Zone boundary amendment.” On 18 June 2014 the Trust received a formal request from the Mt Wellington Cableway Company to consider an amendment of the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area. After considering the request at its meeting on 7 July 2014, the Trust resolved to initiate the process to revise the management plan to include the additional area requested by the Mt Wellington Cableway Company within the Pinnacle Specific Area.

The proposed extension is located to the east of the existing observation shelter and covers an area of approximately 1.1 hectares. It would increase the area of the Pinnacle Specific Area by about 13%. The proposed boundary extension aligns with the additional area requested by the Mt Wellington Cableway Company. No other changes to the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 are proposed.

The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration, within the extension area, of any development proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3 in chapter 8 of the WPMP. The area covered by the draft Amending Plan is currently in the Natural Zone in the WPMP. This zone does not allow for commercial developments but does allow for “infrastructure associated with potential transport modes”.

The Trust has not received any development proposals for the Pinnacle Specific Area, and has made it clear that its proposal to extend the Pinnacle Specific Area does not imply its support for any particular development. Therefore the draft Amending Plan was presented to the public and agency stakeholders to be considered on its merits (see Attachment B).

The draft Amending Plan was advertised in the Mercury on 2nd and 3rd August 2014. Copies of the draft Amending Plan were available from the Wellington Park website, from Service Tasmania in Macquarie Street and on request from the Trust Manager. Copies were sent to stakeholder agencies along with an invitation to make a representation. As required in s 24(5) of the Act, the draft Amending Plan was on exhibition for at least 30 days and representations were received up to 3 September 2014.

Due to the large number of representations received, the Trust sought and received from the Minister an extension on the 30 day period for submission of its report on the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission until 24 October 2014. 3. Overview of Representations The Trust received 551 representations during the public exhibition of the draft Amending Plan as well as 2 responses from agencies stating that they would not be making a formal representation. The Tasmanian Planning Commission is required to review the Trust’s response to the issues raised in the representations. All representations are supplied to the Commission for this purpose.

32 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

With the exception of a representation from Hobart City Council, all representations were from the public or community organisations. Heritage Tasmania and Tourism Tasmania formally advised that they would not be making representations. Heritage Tasmania noted that the pinnacle area does not contain any features entered on the Tasmanian Heritage Register and therefore the agency does not have a statutory interest in the proposed amendment and would not make a representation.

Some persons made more than one representation and other representations had multiple signatories. About 60 representations came via an on-line petition through Change.org. These representations, some with multiple signatories, did not provide any contact details, only a name.

Most representations mentioned the issue of a cable car, expressing either support or opposition to one in the Park. Some representors seemed to be unaware that developments such as a cable car are already allowable in the Pinnacle and Springs Specific Areas in the Park and that the only proposed change is to extend the area allowable for those developments by about a hectare. With landowner consent a development application for a range of tourism related developments, including a cable car, could be submitted now for any location within the two specific areas. The draft Amending Plan provides an extended area for proposals conceived by independent parties to be assessed in accordance with the procedures contained in the Plan.

Many representations simply stated they were in favour or against the draft Amending Plan and/or a cable car. Others provided reasons for or against the draft Amending Plan and/or a cable car. Many commented that no information had been provided to justify the proposed change to the boundary. Some considered an absence of justification sufficient to invalidate the process of amending the WPMP and some even questioned the Trust’s integrity, apparently assuming that the Trust had already made a decision about supporting the cable car proposal by the Mt Wellington Cableway Company, but had not revealed this. It should be noted that the newspaper advertisement and information provided with the draft Amending Plan deliberately made no mention of a cable car or any other possible development. Despite the Trust making it clear in the media that it did not endorse any particular development for the area, many representors assumed a link due to the Trust’s decision to consider the boundary change following a request for the same boundary change by the Mt Wellington Cableway Company.

As most representations focused only on a cable car, and their support or opposition to the draft Amending Plan can only be inferred from this, it is not possible to determine the exact number of representations for and against the proposed draft Amending Plan. However, it is clear that the majority of representations were either opposed to the draft Amending Plan specifically and/or to a cable car in general. It should be noted that the Mt Wellington Cableway Company included in its representation a petition with 934 signatures which had been presented to the Trust prior to its decision to consider the draft Amending Plan. The petition stated: “We the undersigned call on Hobart City Council to grant Landowner consent within Wellington Park to the Mt Wellington Cableway Company, and call on the Wellington Park Management Trust to favourably amend the current Pinnacle Zone boundary to include the preferred location footprint of the proposed Cable Car Pinnacle Centre.” As this petition was completed prior to public exhibition of the draft Amending Plan, the Trust does not assume that all signatories would necessarily support the particular extension to the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area being considered in the draft Amending Plan. It is assumed that those who have an opinion on the draft Amending Plan will have made a representation. For this reason, and the fact that the petition was completed outside period allowed for representations, the Trust has not included the petition as a separate representation.

Some representations questioned why the Trust was funding the process of assessing the draft Amending Plan when section 8.2 of the WPMP says it should be funded by the ‘developer’. Although this would be the case for a development proposal, none has been received.

Appendices 33 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

The main issues raised in representations are included in the summary of this report along with the Trust’s proposed response.

Representation 336 made a notable suggestion as to the course of action that the Trust could take to avoid the issue of an absence of justification for the proposed amendment raised in many representations and a perception amongst some that the Trust was not disclosing a deal it had made with the Mt Wellington Cableway Company. The representation suggested that the proposed amendment be rejected and a minor change be made to the management plan to:

“specifically address how zone boundary changes can be considered as part of the assessment of development applications for major projects. The objective would be to ensure that developments are not precluded by existing zone boundaries if the arguments in favour of a development and zone boundary change are assessed together to be positive. This would provide a transparent planning process that would not require the Management Trust to ally itself with an intended developer.” The Trust does not see this as a reason to reject the draft Amending Plan. However such an approach could be considered in future amendments. It would allow for clarity and ensure the information required for the public and other stakeholders to make informed representations is provided specific to any suggested amendment. This required information would be provided by the development proponent. Such a combined amendment plus development application is common under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 but legal advice would be required to determine if this is possible under the Wellington Park Act 1993 or what changes would be required to the Act to allow amendments to the WPMP to occur in such a way. This approach would not be possible for the current proposed amendment as Hobart Council has advised the Trust that it will only consider development applications that are consistent with the WPMP. 3.1 Issues raised supporting the draft Amending Plan Most representations supporting the draft Amending Plan stated that they also wanted a cable car and that this was their reason for supporting the amendment. Other representations simply stated support for a cable car and it can only be assumed that they also support the draft Amending Plan. However, the draft amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The draft amendment will allow consideration of any development proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP.

The representations that elaborated on their support for the proposed amendment and/or a cable car included the following general reasons for support:

 The draft amendment would allow for developments at the Pinnacle to be located off the skyline and thus in a less visually prominent location. Whilst this comment sometimes related to any buildings that might be constructed at the Pinnacle, in the majority of cases it related to a potential cable car terminal.  Development at the Pinnacle and resulting improved facilities would be good for tourism and for the general economy with increasing visitation to the Park and to Tasmania in general.  Desire for improved access and safer transport than the existing road, particularly over winter months.  Opportunities for links to recreation eg mountain biking.  Reduction in carbon footprint and associated climate change benefits through removal of traffic from Pinnacle Road; improvement to waste management; and the low environmental, noise and visual impact of a cable car. 3.2 Issues raised against the draft Amending Plan

34 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Many representations simply stated opposition to a cable car on kunanyi / Mount Wellington without mentioning the draft Amending Plan. Some noted that they might support a cable car in a different location. Other representations raised numerous grounds for rejecting the draft Amending Plan or questioned the validity of the proposed amendment and the process for assessing it noting their suspicions that it was specifically instigated to facilitate the Mt Wellington Cableway Companiy’s cable car development. Some representations focused on why an additional area for development was not needed at the Pinnacle and didn’t specifically mention a cable car.

It is important to note that the Trust has not received any development proposals for a cable car so representations opposing a cable car are actually opposing an amendment to the WPMP that would extend the area in which a cable car terminal, as well as other commercial developments, could be considered, not an actual cable car proposal.

While the Trust acknowledges the potential validity of concerns raised about a cable car, many of the comments received are speculative in that they raise possible design and infrastructure issues that, depending upon the proposal, may not be relevant and/or significant. The performance standards contained in chapters 8, 8A and 8B provide for the detailed assessment of any development proposals and address many of the specific issues raised in the representations.

The representations that elaborated on their opposition to the proposed amendment and/or a cable car included the following general reasons for opposition:

 Lack of supporting information and a justification for why the proposed amendment is being considered, particularly as the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area was only recently extended in the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013. Representors felt that the lack of information did not allow for an informed debate and it was also mentioned that the lack of information may contravene the provisions for decision making in the Judicial Review Act 2000.  Incompatibility with the objectives of the Plan and inconsistent with purposes of reservation of the Park under the Act; incompatible with various objectives in the Plan. Development in the area would have an unacceptable impact on Park values and therefore the proposed amendment was not consistent with the requirements of the WPMP or the Act.  The proposed boundary extension does not comply with the requirement in chapter 12, s.12.4 Policy and Actions (3) of the WPMP which states: ‘Whenever any Park zone boundaries are being considered for change, where possible define boundaries that facilitate better management of the Park’s values, which will generally accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, and/or water catchment boundaries.’  No extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area boundary is needed, as it already comprises a significant area, which was only recently extended in the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013. Increasing the area available for development would increase rather than minimise impacts on Park values.  Development in the proposed extension area, particularly a cable car terminal, will be clearly visible from Hobart and detrimental to the visual and natural values of the Park, particularly the Organ Pipes.  Wellington Park seen as a special place for varying reasons including “peace and quiet”, “wilderness” qualities, “unspoilt beauty”, a remedy for ‘nature deficit disorder’ etc. This would be impacted on by developments like a cable car. Some representations expressed the view that a major development on the mountain would destroy these qualities and sense of place that they valued very strongly.  There is no business case in a broad tourism sense for expanding commercial development in the Park. There is no evidence that people are not visiting the Park due to a lack of facilities. Providing more facilities could damage the real attraction of Wellington Park

Appendices 35 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

which is its uniqueness as a wild area with little development located close to a city and easily accessible.  Development in the proposed extension area will impact on flora, fauna, cultural heritage and geoheritage values including threatened species.  The Springs is a more appropriate area for development and the WPMP states that this is the preferred area for development of visitor facilities.  Commercial development at the Pinnacle is unviable given the frequent wind and cloud conditions.  Changing the management plan at the request of one developer sets a dangerous planning precedent and is poor planning practice.  Development in the proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area would have adverse environmental impacts including noise, litter, pollution, water quality, and construction would risk destabilising the Organ Pipes. The potential impact on the Organ Pipes was a particular concern with some representations noting past evidence of, and the potential for, rock falls.  If there is a need to expand the Pinnacle Specific Area to allow for growing visitor numbers, then it should be expanded westwards from the summit rather than down the slope towards Hobart.  Development in the proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area would be at risk from bushfires and increase the risk of fires. The cables associated with a cable car would be a risk to airborne fire fighting appliances.  The Trust should be minimising and reducing impacts on the summit not extending the development zone and increasing the negative visual and environmental impacts in this area. The following comments are not assumed to oppose the proposed amendment per se, just its possible use as a site for a cable car terminal.  A cable car would adversely affect existing businesses operating in the Park as well as existing activities such as rock climbing and paragliding. A cable car would be a risk to rock climbers if its route runs over climbing areas.  A cable car would allow for closure of Pinnacle Road and this may be required to make a cable car financially viable.  Questions raised about the economic viability of a cable car given the significant infrastructure costs. Although these comments are not considered to be reasons against the draft Amending Plan, most were in representations that raised other issues opposing the proposed amendment. Some representations considered that the process for assessing the draft Amending Plan has been compromised by the Trust accepting multiple representations from the same person and from persons using an alias or not providing contact details that can be verified. Whilst these comments were not specifically against the draft Amending Plan, their conclusion was that the current process to assess it should be abandoned.

36 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

4. Response Table

This table provides a summary and discussion of issues raised by the 551 representations, and the Trust’s response. A number of the representations have been grouped together where they have raised similar issues and have expressed similar sentiments, although each representation has not necessarily raised each of the issues under which it is listed. This has been done to reduce the amount of repetition as much as possible and to reduce the length of the report to a more manageable size. As much as possible people’s actual wording has been utilised, rather than just summarised, in order to give a sense of how people have expressed their thoughts, although again for the sake of brevity, some summarisation and amalgamation of representations has occurred.

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 1, 124, 242, 243, Opposes the proposed change to the Pinnacle Specific Area (PSA) Opposition noted. 266, 296, 309, management zone boundary as it already comprises a significant area, The extension adds an additional 1.1 hectares to the Pinnacle Specific 310, 342, 350, which was only recently extended in the 2013 review. All development Area. The area of land that is the subject of the proposed amendment is 352, 354, 358, proposals should conform with the existing boundary or be rejected. currently zoned ‘Natural.’ This zone already allows for ‘infrastructure 366, 368, 369, associated with Potential Transport Modes’ to be considered but prohibits 370, 372, 373, Development in the proposed amendment area will compromise visual and ‘Food Services,’ ‘Tourism Operation’s and ‘Park Management Office.’ The 375, 377, 378, natural values. amendment would include this land in the Pinnacle Specific Area which 379, 380, 383, would allow for any development which fits into the three currently 384, 385, 387, Maintain the mountain in its natural state and protect the flora and fauna. prohibited categories, to become discretionary and be able to be 393, 399, 420, considered. Any proposal would still be required to meet all of the 427, 432, 444, Having a large track of nature so close to our city is such a rare gift and relevant assessment criteria and standards in the Wellington Park 464, 468, 469, everything should be done to preserve its environment state – not to open Management Plan (WPMP) 2013. These cover the following issues: 483, 495, 497, it to exploitation. (rep 468)  flora and fauna conservation, geoconservation and natural processes 498, 501, 505,  cultural heritage 508, 516, 518, It is not only we Hobart residents that enjoy the splendour of the mountain  water quality 522 as Hobart’s backdrop, but also the many tourists that come here who are  landscape, visual quality and amenity both stunned and delighted by the mountain’s lack of development and its  environmental hazards – regolith and fire unspoilt beauty. (rep 469)  provision of infrastructure; roads, water, sewerage, stormwater  car parking and access; provision and design Mt Wellington is a public park and much loved and visited by the people of  building design; height, size, appearance and lighting Hobart and surrounds. Any summit developments would not benefit local  building siting people. For us Mt Wellington is a place of recreation and a place to  noise. reconnect with nature, to be inspired and to experience peace and quiet

and the sounds of nature. (rep 518)

Appendices 37 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

Why is it always such a battle to make people understand our attachment The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within an to our mountain. (rep 522) area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ The area of high visual People come to see wild Tasmania not infrastructure they see in other management sensitivity includes the whole of the Pinnacle Specific Area. cities. Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Making Tasmania the same as everywhere else removes our point of Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per Chapter 8B, difference and the very thing that tourists come to see will disappear along section s.2.6, Standards for Use and Development. with them.

The long-established Pinnacle Road facilitates quick and inexpensive public The WPMP recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor services but and private vehicular access on any day, by way of a spectacular drive, also allows for consideration of any development proposal which fits without disruption to views or other recreational pursuits in the area. (rep within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific 352) Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP.

The Springs is more a more appropriate location for visitors and where many walking tracks begin. (reps 266, 243, 352, 376, 378,)

Development at the Pinnacle economically unviable given weather variability and extend of cloud cover days (rep 352)

Mt Wellington is easily accessible on foot, by bike, and by car as it is – a cable car is really infrastructure for the sake of infrastructure, designed to fill the pockets of a few private investors at the expense of Mt Wellington's (and South Hobart's) intrinsic values. There are less invasive methods for managing access to Pinnacle Road and Mt Wellington's summit, which preserve the values of the mountain as a wild place for exploring, within easy reach of the city of Hobart. I strongly urge the Wellington Park Management trust to preserve exactly these values, which are becoming increasingly diminished world-wide. (rep 498)

38 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, Support the amendment to the plan to allow access for a cable car. Support noted These representations generally didn’t elaborate on any 17, 22, 27, 31, reasons for their support. 40, 41, 47, 48, 49, 52, 61, 64, The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car, as this 66, 69, 71, 72, is already allowable in the WPMP. It simply increases the area at the 77, 78, 82, 83, summit of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where any development proposal 84, 85, 93, 123, which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the 172, 193, 202, Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP 203, 208, 210, could be considered. This includes facilities associated with a cable car. 211, 219, 221, 230, 232, 233, 257, 259, 260, 276, 285, 326, 335, 428, 430, 442, 481, 537 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, Support the amendment which allows for some future developments on the Support noted. These representations support the amendment but don’t 16, 18, 19, 21, mountain. specifically link the amendment to a cable car proposal. Many do not give 26, 28, 29, 33, any specific reasons for support. A few briefly state economic benefits or 34, 35, 37, 38, Economically needed to boost tourism and to revitalise the city. location. 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, Amendment area less exposed and thus a better location for tourist 63, 65, 67, 72, facilities. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi 74, 75, 80, 87, / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the 88, 89, 110, 170, Fully support this boundary adjustment. Hopefully this will ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as 171, 175, 182, pave the way for more (sustainable) development in Hobart and help to described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. No 189, 196, 201, stem the exodus of the younger population to Melbourne and the mainland specific development proposal has been submitted yet. 204, 211, 212, in general. (rep 63) 223, 238, 253, 272, 277, 278, Any development on Mt Wellington should be done for our local 289, 297, 361, enjoyment. Visitors will then follow. It is an embarrassment to take visitors 431, 445, 446, to Mt Wellington, as facilities in other places are so much better and views 451, 479, 499, just as good. The people of Hobart love the mountain and want to use it.

Appendices 39 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 543 Access should be easy for everyone to the Springs with good quality comfortable facilities and a visitors' centre/hub for local activities. Car access to the pinnacle could be restricted with a cable car; railway or self drive small but purpose built (ie cope with snow) vehicles. (rep 543)

7, 11, 12, 20, 23, Support amendment and cable car because: Support noted. These representations support the amendment because 24, 30, 36, 42,  Less skyline impact they consider it will facilitate a cable car proposal and list one or more of 43, 54, 57, 58,  Better and safer access, including for disabled the dot pointed reasons for supporting it. 59, 60, 79, 91,  Better facilities at the Pinnacle 92, 94, 108, 174,  Support an economically sustainable proposal The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car, 183, 190, 195,  Better environmental outcomes though it would allow consideration of a cable car terminal in area 199, 200, 205,  Improved educational and historical opportunities proposed to be added to the Pinnacle Specific Area. The proposed 206, 207, 215,  Away from potential ice fall from existing towers amendment will allow consideration of any development proposal which 220, 225, 231, fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle 234, 235, 238, Surely well considered sensible tourism promoting an Eco friendly way of Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. 251, 255, 261, seeing the Pinnacle is a fantastic opportunity for Hobart and Tasmania in 262, 279, 281, general. (rep 437) Disabled access is required to be considered for any development and is 292, 298, 299, governed by the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of 302, 303, 313, The current viewing platform could be removed in favour of the cable car Australia. 333, 339, 359, development and actually visually improve the view of the mountain from 434, 435. 437, Hobart. (rep 447) 438, 447, 448, 466, 475, 480, On the scale of kunanyi / Mount Wellington, a cable car will be very small 482, 511, 513 and unobtrusive and it would attract many visitors, which fits very neatly with the Trust’s desires to promote tourism for Wellington Park. The idea that the experiences the Hobart community value in kunanyi / Mount Wellington will be lost or compromised because of a cable car is not true. Section 1.1 (a) Purpose of the Management Plan, states that the Park is The cable car would silently pass by those on the mountain and visually not reserved for the purpose of recreational and tourism uses and impact in the way opponents believe. (rep 466) opportunities consistent with the purposes specified in paragraphs (b) to (e), which relate to the protection of various fauna, flora landscape and A cable car, being the most effective way to access the Pinnacle, provides cultural values as well as water catchment values. A tourist use complies opportunity to showcase the mountain in a way not previously seen before. with this purpose but whether it meets purpose (a), consistent with

40 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The mountain is a vast space, and this relatively small addition to what is purposes (b) to (e) and then also meets the appropriate guidelines and considered to be park land (not world heritage) can stimulate both the standards of the WPMP can only be made when an actual proposal for that Tasmanian economy through tourism, and also the maintenance and use is received and a full assessment can be conducted. managing of the Park itself. (rep 482)

As a mountaineer, rock climber and trekker I believe the cable car will enhance the accessibility to the mountains and help people to enjoy the beautiful environment of the Wellington Park. The plans as put forward seem to be entirely environmentally sensitive and can in no way be considered an eyesore. In particular the design of the proposed Pinnacle Centre nestled as it is out of view from most vantage points. Believe the proposed amendment will have little if any impact and that the boulder field is in no way at any risk of environmental damage. (rep 511)

If there is concern that the area may grow to a size that the Trust are uncomfortable with, suggest that the recent northern extension which falls on the eastern side of Pinnacle road be reduced? The area mentioned is in Further changes to the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area are not no way less important or fragile than the proposed new area and the end being considered at this time. result could be roughly the same size as we already have.

25, 236 There is no need for the boundary change, as this development is not Opposition noted. The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for necessary for the mountain. The cable car's continued promotion by a a cable car. minority group of the population fails to take into account the view of the The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within an majority of the population that a cable car is unnecessary and will area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an significantly negatively impact the ambience of the mountain. area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any Such a boundary change and associated development would have development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be detrimental visual impacts on the views from the greater Southern conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Tasmania region of Mt Wellington, particularly if associated with a cable car. Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being Impact needs to be viewed from all angles and directions to create an submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made. accurate and truthful representation of the cable car impact.

Appendices 41 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The amendment will allow consideration of any development proposal If approved will require supporting infrastructure and a restaurant, toilets which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the etc and other developments on the Pinnacle. Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. The top of Mount Wellington already has a number of structures and is not There is a perfectly good road to the Pinnacle of the mountain, which is ‘development free’. Table 3 relating to the Pinnacle Specific Area zone closed at times of high wind and extreme weather; times when a cable car allows for consideration of a range of types of development including would similarly be closed, meaning that access to the top of the mountain developments that fall within the categories of ‘Tourist Operation,’ ‘Food would not be improved by a cable car. Services’ and ‘Transport Depot and Distribution.

Few times when snow closes the road does not justify a cable car. The road to the Pinnacle is closed at times of extreme weather - usually ice or snow conditions and also in times of extreme wind or fire risk. It is likely If a cable car must be instituted, let it terminate at the Springs, where visual that a cable car would also be closed in times of extreme weather - mainly impact can be more easily minimised. Keep the top of Mt Wellington wind and fire. development-free for the future. The current WPMP allows for consideration of a cable car to the Springs, subject to any such proposal meeting the relevant standards of the plan. 32 Fully support the proposed amendment to the boundary. It would allow Support noted. The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline development below the edge of skyline, and as such minimise the visual but is within an area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management impact of a new building in this area, both from the city to the pinnacle and Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should vice versa. the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made. 56 Yes to amendment noting following points : Support noted. Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 of the WPMP discusses the 1. Free road access at all times - Even if cable car approved as an aside. Sustainable Transport System, endorsed by the Trust in 2009. This system 2. Free parking at all times recognises that a primary means of transport for the Park is by private 3. If only one (monopoly) type (ie café) business operator then some sort of vehicle. Section 9.3.1 indicates that ‘the Trust’s research suggests price regulator to stop over charging for food/goods. community support for a fee for vehicle access to the Park via Pinnacle Road, particularly if an alternative transport option were to be provided e.g. a shuttle-bus service.’

42 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The issue of a price regulator for any potential operator is not an issue considered in the WPMP and is not relevant to this amendment proposal.

62, 90, 244, 254, Do not support this amendment. Do not support the cable car proposal and Opposition noted. The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for 258, 282, 287, associated facilities and do not support the extension of the boundary to a cable car. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the 307, 319, 320, facilitate development. summit of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where development proposals 346, 398, 407, The Park’s integrity should not be compromised. which fit within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle 412, 422, 423, Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be 424, 470 Cable cars are an old concept and an old way of thinking towards nature. considered. No specific development proposal has been submitted yet. Surely we have moved beyond such offerings for tourists. (rep 470) The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act Changing the Management Plan at the request of one developer sets a 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an dangerous precedent. (rep 90) amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments. The process is reviewed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor.

68, 70 Support the amendment and cable car which will make the mountain more Support noted. The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a accessible to all as well as taking traffic off the road through the Springs. cable car. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit Modifying the development area to allow the cable car to be built would of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit have significant benefits for the mountain as well as significantly increasing within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific tourist activity in Tasmania's capital! It's vital the cable car has the ability to Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. carry mountain bikes in order to increase utilisation of the excellent tracks No specific development proposal has been submitted yet for a cable car on the mountain and capitalize on this booming industry. thus the issue of it being able to carry mountain bikes cannot be assessed, however the WPMP recognises and encourages mountain biking in the Park on designated tracks and the Trust is considering further construction of mountain bike tracks and conversion of some walking tracks to multi- use.

73, 300, 301, Oppose the proposal to expand the development zone as this will ultimately Opposition noted. 317, 340, 341, lead to construction projects on the face of the mountain which will take The only two areas of the Park that allow a certain level of commercial 362, 364, 414, advantage of the fantastic views, but at the expense of anyone who wants development are the Springs and Pinnacle Specific Areas and within these

Appendices 43 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 519, 524, 526, to the enjoy the mountain as it is, in its natural state. areas the standards applying to the assessment of any use and 528, 529, 535, development are intended to protect all of the identified values, including, 538 The proposed extension will be clearly visible from Hobart and development natural values. The bulk of the rest of the Parks 18,250 hectares only in this area would be visually detrimental to the beautiful mountain allows for maintenance, upgrading and replacement of existing facilities, backdrop to the city. Please do not allow the possibility of development in infrastructure for water and fire management purposes and park-related this area! (rep 340) furniture. Any new tracks go through a rigorous assessment process focused on assessing the impact on natural values before a decision is We need to protect its natural beauty for future generations to enjoy, not made to approve them or not. The WPMP attempts to balance the aims of add unnecessary structures, impact plant life and add litter. Please leave protecting Park values along with facilitating visitor enjoyment and our mountain alone. (rep 300) recreation opportunities in the Park.

Increased development here will increase infrastructure stresses on the mountain and in the long run be unviable.

Costly and unsightly infrastructure will be required to service any major developments at the Pinnacle. (rep 414) The service infrastructure needs of a development would be assessed as part of the assessment and approval process as set out in the WPMP. 76 Support the amendment and as long as the project is well planned and Support noted. managed and carefully overseen by appropriate persons then would The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The welcome a cable car facility to the Pinnacle with suitable convenient proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / function area catering for the local people as well as tourists etc. Unless the Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the cable car is accessible to all, including locals who have never been to the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as Pinnacle, bush walkers, day trippers, tourists from cruise ships, overseas described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. visitors, indigenous people, in fact all classes and cultures, the project will be deemed a failure. Believe amendment will allow for reduced visual Any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be impact, better access including for disabled and better visitor comfort and conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 facilities. Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made.

Safety and disabled access issues are generally governed by the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of Australia.

44 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

81 Support the amendment and the building of a cable car. Have seen cable Support noted. The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cars working very well in other parts of the world that are an asset and have cable car. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit not spoiled the natural values of the area. of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit This is exactly the sort of development that Tassie needs! within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. 86 Have no issue or concern with the proposed changes and fully support the Support noted. development of this area in so far that it is complementary to existing buildings and infrastructure.

90, 355, 389, Object most strongly to the proposal to extend the development zone on Opposition noted. 391, 515 the mountain. We must accept that not everyone can necessarily access Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to every beauty spot; amend the WPMP in accordance with the process set out in the Act. This process requires the Trust to seek, and consider the merits of, The current review has no ‘social licence.’ (rep 389) representations made by the public.

Concern that there is no current, rigorous assessment in place to address Any development application received will be assessed against the many environmental issues, cultural and safety concerns, raised whenever there is guidelines, policy statements and actual standards that are contained in possibility of significant tourism development. (rep 515) the WPMP.

95 Oppose the proposed expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area as being Opposition noted. inappropriate, and in direct conflict with the values which inform the WPMP The mechanisms for protecting the values of the Park in the WPMP are not and are manifested in that plan, specifically as delineated in Chapter 8b. being changed. The same standards would apply to any developments in the extended Pinnacle Specific Area as in the current Pinnacle Specific The proposal would clear the way for building development that would Area. contravene: the last aspect of S2.1.2; all of S2.1.3; the second and third parts of S2.1.4; potentially and most likely contravenes Issue 6 The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development (Environmental Hazards – (a) Regolith; potentially contravenes Issue 7 in proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in that any major construction below the current observation building would the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. need quite a lot of blasting to create foundations and this may affect the Any proposal will need to meet all relevant standards of the WPMP and in stability of parts of the Organ Pipes. particular chapter 8B, relating to the Pinnacle Specific Area. A Visual Impact Analysis would be required, in order to assess compliance with

Appendices 45 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The proposal would result in the degradation and diminution of the wild s2.1.2, s2.1.3 and s2.1.4. A Geotechnical stability report to assess nature of the east face of the mountain. Any expansion of the area on the compliance with Issue 6(a) Regolith, a Bushfire Management Plan to eastern face opens the possibility of construction that undermines the required to assess compliance with Issue 6(b) Fire. Development proposals pristine and wild nature of that side of the mountain. that don’t meet the requirements of the WPMP would be rejected.

In its current state, the natural environment between the Pinnacle Road and Until an actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to the summit is home to four major (and increasingly popular) recreational impacts or compliance with the WPMP can be made. activities: walking, mountain biking, climbing and paragliding. Expanding the PSA in the manner proposed is unnecessary and likely to impact on the Impacts on other recreational users likewise cannot be assessed until a enjoyment of these activities, with climbers and paragliders most impacted specific development proposal, with the required studies attached, has upon. been submitted. Impacts on other recreational users are always a consideration when any new development or project is being considered Climbers use the area between the observation deck and the Organ Pipes to access climbs. Any development nearer the Organ Pipes would restrict climbers’ access and potentially increase the risk of climbers being affected by people throwing rocks and other items towards the cliff.

Paragliders use the area above the Organ Pipes as a take-off area; clearly that would be curtailed or restricted were any development of that area to proceed.

Less affected but still potentially impacted upon would be bushwalkers. Although there are no specific trails in that part of the mountain, highly competent hikers do enjoy getting off-track and occasionally wander from the summit and down through the Organ Pipes – or vice versa. There has even been a commercial operator guiding groups in that area in the past. Expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area to the west would intrude into the If the Trust feels that the current PSA is insufficient in size to allow for North West Bay River drinking water catchment area (see Map 5 in the growing visitor numbers, then it should consider expanding that area WPMP). westwards from the summit rather than down the slope towards Hobart.

96 Strongly opposed to any development on top of the mountain and Opposition noted.

46 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response especially a cable car. Believe that the WPMP as it stands is appropriate The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The and that the process that any development is required to undertake is fair proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / and provides appropriate protection to our mountain. Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as For amendments to the management plan to be proposed as developments described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. The come along is planning in its worst form. If this amendment is approved same standards would apply to any developments in the extended then the management plan does not reflect the vision of appropriate Pinnacle Specific Area as in the current Pinnacle Specific Area. practices and development of the mountain and gives green light to any future development knowing that amendments will be made as a matter of The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act practice to suit the proposed new development. 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and The beauty of the mountain is its relative free view fields without man- consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and made intrusion. make its final decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor.

97, 228, 229, The proposed addition to the Pinnacle Specific Zone should be rejected Opposition noted. Rep 97 has been quoted here as it elaborates on the 237, 245, 304, because: reasons for opposing the proposed amendment and quotes sections of the 367, 417, 462, 1. It is not necessary. Refer to page 132 outlining the facilities that may be management plan to support the objections. The other reps listed here 465, 467, 471, permitted in the Pinnacle Specific Zone in comparison to the adjacent have included some or all of the same points but have not generally quoted 486, 507, 514 Natural Zone. the management plan to the same degree. The following use/development could according to the plan be permitted in the Pinnacle Specific Zone which would not be permitted in the Natural The list of potential use and development that could be considered in the Zone; Tourism operation, Food service, Transport depot and distribution amendment area, if it becomes part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, is (the Natural Zone allows transport infrastructure "only for infrastructure correct. Whether it is necessary or not is a matter of judgement based on associated with Potential Transport Modes", so this would have to refer to the level of facilities a person considers appropriate for them to have a road transport), Vehicle parking, Park seating, Park management office. good experience on the mountain. This will vary hugely from person to None of these facilities are needed at the Pinnacle extra to what already person and the management plan does not attempt to answer this. Rather exists. In the event that a decision is made to build one or more of these it seeks to meet a number of purposes for which the Wellington Park is things, they could all be accommodated within the existing Pinnacle Specific reserved, as defined on page 3. These include both the purpose of Zone. protecting the various values of the Park as identified in the WPMP and also the provision of recreational and tourism uses and opportunities. The

Appendices 47 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 2. It will compromise the Values of the Plan WPMP encourages the provision of visitor facilities at the Springs but also Refer to page ii of the plan which states in part "Providing enhanced recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park seek to go to the experiences requires an understanding of the needs and expectations of summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. visitors to the Park. While visitor facilities should not be provided at the expense of other Park values, there are opportunities to develop and promote a range of tourism and recreation activities that would contribute to the visitation of the State. The management plan describes a range of values in section 2.3. The policy The Plan makes many references to the scenic and spiritual values of the statements, guidelines and standards are aimed at protecting those values mountain, but I think it is sufficient to refer to page 13; and this is a complex balancing act, particularly in relation to protecting "..The values and qualities for which the Park is protected include: the natural and cultural values and at the same time facilitating the The considerable aesthetic value of the Park based on both the scale and enjoyment of the Park by locals and tourists alike. grandeur of its natural setting, and the texture, colour and character of its The proposed amendment has been advertised by the Trust in order to component parts;" and page 17; the "sense of place" give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the "The Park is more than a biophysical reserve, and more the historical parts extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described that make it up. ‘It is, in fact, part of the community’s ‘extended sense of in the plan. Following receipt of the representations made, the Trust will self’. ‘That is, it is inextricably linked into the psyche and perhaps the being consider all of them, decide to either approve or reject the amendment, of the community of southern Tasmanians who live in its shadow. This is produce a report on their assessment and decision and submit the report reflected in: a broad range of personal and artistic responses to the Park; its and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for sense of wildness; the historic use of the Park for various forms of its review. recreation; and its role as a site of significant scientific research." The plan acknowledges the value of this aesthetic as more than just wilderness or diversity, but that it has a spiritual dimension.

Expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area will, when used to do things not allowed under the current plan and zoning, result than in an increased footprint in the Pinnacle area which decreases the visual and spiritual amenity of the mountain. These facilities will be provided at the expense of other Park values and hence contravene the WPMP.

3. The purpose is not consistent with the Plan The reason for the proposed alteration being requested at this time (when the plan is not due for a review) is that it has been requested by the There is currently no specific development proposal thus skyline impact

48 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response proponent of a cable car development. In the absence of detailed cannot be assessed. The area of the proposed amendment is within an documentation (Although the proposed change is prompted by this project, area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an it is not even mentioned in the call for submissions issued by the Trust), I area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the will use the details displayed on the proponents website: proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any The proposal calls for a cable car crossing the Organ Pipes directly over the development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be Columns. It would require two large towers within the Park, one on the spur conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 north of Myrtle Gully and the other just above the Organ Pipes. Such a Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building development severely interferes with the aesthetic values, sense of place Height. and unique qualities of this part of the Park.

This project is grossly inconsistent with the Management Plan therefore it is not appropriate to modify the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Zone to accommodate it. In particular reference pages i, ii and page 3; page i :The Wellington Park Management Trust represents the collective interest and aspirations of the land managers/owners within Wellington Park (together with Tourism Tasmania and TasWater), and is charged with the legislative responsibility for developing a plan of management for the Park which recognises, promotes and preserves its unique qualities.

page ii: Providing enhanced experiences requires an understanding of the needs and expectations of visitors to the Park. While visitor facilities should not be provided at the expense of other Park values, there are opportunities to develop and promote a range of tourism and recreation activities that would contribute to the visitation of the State.

page 3; Wellington Park is reserved for the following purposes as listed form (a) to (e). Under the Wellington Park Act, the Trust is the managing authority for the Park and has the responsibility to: - provide for the management and maintenance of the Park in a manner that is consistent with the purposes for which it is set aside; and to give effect to any management plan in force for the Park.

Appendices 49 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Also page 13; THE BASIS FOR MANAGEMENT, section 2.1 Pages 16 and 17 statements of significance of cultural, landscape and sense of place. Page 25-26; Management Objectives.

If extension to Pinnacle Specific Area really needed, expand west. Westward expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area would be into the North West Bay River catchment area. This is a drinking water catchment area. The proposed amendment fails to further the vision, principles and objectives of the Management Plan, and the purposes for which Wellington Park was set aside. (rep 417)

The proposed Amendment contradicts and flies in the face of many of the The standards for use and development in the Park are not being changed. performance based standards in the Plan with relation to minimising impact The same standards that apply to any developments in the existing PSA on heritage, environmental, landscape, cultural and social values, aesthetic would apply to developments in the proposed extension. and visual impact. (rep 507)

98 Concerned because the developments now on the Mountain fall far short of Support, subject to reservations noted. reasonable expectations and give cause for alarm. If future developments follow the same way the mountain will be scarred irreparably by greedy developers. But supports other development on top of Mt Wellington.

Comments on the proposed cable car are also relevant to other developments: Many of the issues raised can only be assessed if and when a relevant 1) All aspects of the development be below the ridge line and be development application has been received. camouflaged with mountain rock so as to be unseen to most observers and only seen at close quarters. 2) Sounds given off by developments to be closely monitored to assure Some of the issues raised eg alcohol consumption are beyond the scope of other peoples enjoyment this management plan and this amendment. 3) All expenses of developing the sites ie water, power, grey water removal, etc be paid by the speculators and NO PUBLIC MONIES be provided. 4) The speculators to put money into a trust fund to remove the sites if they prove uneconomical or found wanting for other reasons

50 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 5) Light emissions should be minimised or stopped completely by windows that allow light in and concealed inside. 6) Rubbish must not be allowed out of these developments ie food consumed must stay in the facility that sells it 7) Alcohol consumption must be somehow regulated as the mountain road, especially in winter would be dangerous if drivers are allowed to drink too The issue of continued road access is given recognition in the WPMP. much. Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 discusses the Sustainable Transport System, 8) Consideration be given to private properties that are over “flown“ by the endorsed by the Trust in 2009. This system recognises that a primary cable car. means of transport for the Park is by private vehicle. Section 9.3.1 9) Consideration to the economical effect to business in the same area. indicates that ‘the Trust’s research suggests community support for a fee 10) Pinnacle Road must be always open to the public and free. The public in for vehicle access to the Park via Pinnacle Road, particularly if an the guise of the people who payed for the road all those years ago have alternative transport option were to be provided e.g. a shuttle-bus already paid for our road and the right to travel on it. service.’

99, 100, 316, Opposes the amendment Opposition noted. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the 337, 356, 419, The proposed changes to allow for the construction of the Mount summit of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where development proposals 472 Wellington Cable Car have come at the pressure of a small minority that which fit within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle support such development. Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. It is not specifically for a cable car but will allow for its Mount Wellington has been, and continues to be, an impeccable and assessment, if approved. untouched example of the natural environment. Considerable changes to the mountain would place this at risk and compromise its integrity. No specific cable car development proposal has been submitted, thus its merits and credibility cannot be assessed at this stage. The Mount Wellington Cable Car proposal lacks merit, credibility and support, thus any adjustments to boundaries to support its construction should not be pursued. It should comply with existing management plan

No studies available showing compliance with Park values or economic viability

The view is currently free. The area with the best view will be effectively privatised. It will be impossible to look at the best view without entering

Appendices 51 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response commercial facilities and perhaps being forced to pay for the privilege, even if a person has walked up to the summit. (rep 337)

101, 290, 314, Opposed to the extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area on Mt Opposition noted. 315, 325, 349, Wellington as this is seen as the first step in facilitating the building of a (Rep 457 consists of a petition signed by 14 persons) 457, 493, 525, cable car up Mt. Wellington. 544, 547 (also Section 8.5.1 of the WPMP requires a number of the issues raised in these raises many of It is an inappropriate development for Hobart. A cable car would be representations to be addressed should an application for a cable car be the issues raised unsightly and diminish the status of the mountain and would spoil the received. This includes a detailed business and financial plan, – see 8.5.1 in the ROCC whole setting for the city. (4). Other comments made are speculative and particularly in the absence (change.org) of any specific cable car proposal cannot be addressed. petition – see The cable car proposal is unlikely to be economically viable with Tasmanian rep 104 etc.) taxpayers and Hobart ratepayers likely to be the ones who pay the recurrent costs of a money-losing venture.

The cost of riding the cable car is likely to be exorbitant and therefore it is unlikely to be patronised by Tasmanians. If Tasmanians did ride the cable car it is most likely that they will do it only once or twice and Hobart is a pretty small market to support such a venture. (rep 101)

Not only does the plan have very poor economic incentives, but you stand to alienate many people in the state by going through with the cable car plan. (rep 525)

There is absolutely no financial integrity behind the proposed cable car development and even a rudimentary assessment of the finances of the proposal reveals woeful prospects for financial viability.(rep 547)

In order to make the cable car viable there most likely would be road The issue of continued road access is given recognition in the WPMP. closures that effectively stop cars from visiting the top of the mountain and Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 discusses the Sustainable Transport System, dictating that the only access is by cable car. (rep 101) endorsed by the Trust in 2009. This system recognises that a primary means of transport for the Park is by private vehicle.

52 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response As an engineer with experience in doing many of the same calculations that are required for designing and building a cable car, the allure of building it is understood but is not an appropriate development for Mt Wellington. Tasmania does not have anywhere close to the throughput of visitors that Europe, New Zealand or South Africa has-the common examples cited as successful cable car developments. So comparing the developments from these locations is a bad comparison. If we had snow, like continental Europe, or even like New Zealand then maybe we would have a pull factor to justify it but we don’t. Table Mountain in South Africa doesn’t have an access road to compete with and with the regular Tasmanian cloud cover you regularly don’t even get a view from Mount Wellington anyway. The sums have been done a few times by engineers with experience in prefeasibility and engineering estimates and none of us believe it can ever be viable. (rep 493)

During construction sewage, communications, and the maintenance/upgrading of the Pinnacle Road, will be big ticket items. Often During the construction process for any development on the mountain, developers require the local community to share these cost stating that it impacts are controlled by a range of conditions placed on the permit shows commitment to the project. At this stage there are neither accurate holder that cover construction and environmental impacts as well as costs projections nor a cost-sharing model. ongoing management requirements to minimise impacts on both the Until there are accurate figures detailing who is paying for what, it is identified values of the Park and on other Park users. impossible to evaluate how much the proposed cable car would cost rate payers and tax payers. Until the cable car proposal has a bit more meat on the bones it should not be part of the deliberations of the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013, and should in no way influence their findings. (rep 544)

Besides the aesthetic concerns, there will be huge environmental degradation in the construction of the cable car and ongoing pollution from lubricant oils as well as noise pollution. (Rep 101)

There are a number of established businesses that take tourists up the

Appendices 53 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response mountain in a more discreet fashion and their livelihoods would be compromised.(Rep 101)

The proposed cable car will impact on rock climbers and walkers enjoyment of the mountain (Rep 101)

102, 103, 286, Mount Wellington is highly significant to the people of Hobart and for it's Opposition noted. 311, 312, traditional owners. It's towering wildness contributes substantially to The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the Hobartians sense of perspective and general sanity. Please do not approve WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high Remainder of changes to the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area for development. visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed reps 103 and 286 amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development raise the same Ecologically sensitive and unique areas need to be protected for their proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a issues as the inherent value, for future generations and are worth more economically in suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use Residents their natural state. and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an Opposed to the actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual Cable Car Hobartians do not want the mountain’s unique environment spoiled by or other impacts can be made. The management plan does not require a (ROCC) inappropriate development. development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss Change.org of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ petition. See rep As our cities become more crowded and more intensively developed, Mt Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 104 etc Wellington’s natural values are becoming an even greater asset to Hobart. Visual Sensitivity. Why would you consider changing your management plan to make it easier to damage and devalue that asset? The management plan encourages the provision of visitor facilities at the Suggest expanding and upgrading the facilities at The Springs, where such Springs but also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park changes would be less intrusive and would not threaten the very values that seek to go to the summit and that some improved facilities are needed attract people to Mt Wellington in the first place. there.

Increased risk of fire with increased numbers of people at the Pinnacle eg There is no history of bushfire ignitions in the Pinnacle area from existing cigarette butts. (rep 286) use and nothing to indicate the risk would increase if visitor numbers increased.

104, 107, 109, Strongly oppose the proposal to make changes to the Pinnacle Specific Area Opposition noted. Change.org online petition - ROCC -(Residents Opposed

54 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 111(point 4) management zone. to the Cable Car) petition. Reps 104, 109, 168, 181, 218, 256, 263, 275, 114, 115, 116 280, 287, 293, 305, 330, 331, 332, 357,371, 400, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 119, 120(points 1. The proposed cable car would destroy the unspoilt beauty and nature of 408, 409, 413, 449, 450, 452, 460, 461, 484, 487, 504, 506 and 542 2 and 3), 126, Mt. Wellington. submitted separately but with some or all of the same issues raised. 127, 128, 129, The proposed extension over the top of the eastern face of Mt Wellington 130, 131, 132, would be clearly visible from Hobart. Any development in this area would The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the 133, 134, 135, fundamentally change the nature of Mt Wellington. The Pinnacle Specific WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high 139, 140, 141, Area should be restricted to the current boundary to preserve the visual visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed 143, 146, 147, amenity of the mountain. amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development 149, 150, 154, proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a 155, 156, 157, 2. A large part of the current Pinnacle Specific Area and proposed extension suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use 158, 159, 160, cover high altitude periglacial terrain that has not been affected by and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an 161, 162, 163, glaciation, rare for Tasmania. The Pinnacle Specific Area should be actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual 164, 165, 166, restricted to the current boundary to minimise impact on periglacial or other impacts can be made. The management plan does not require a 167, 169, 170, landforms. development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss 177, 178, 184, of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ 185, 186, 187, 3. The extension would be only 100 metres west of and above the Organ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 179 (points 1 Pipes, a world-class climbing area and an important aesthetic feature of Visual Sensitivity. and 4), 198, 218, Hobart. The Pinnacle Specific Area should be restricted to the current 222, 226, 241, boundary to minimize risk to climbers from falling rocks dislodged or The area of periglacial landforms of conservation value includes the 249, 252, 256, thrown by visitors to the top of the cliff face. current Pinnacle Specific Area as well as a large area to the west as shown 263, 265, 274, on the Natural Values Atlas. Should the amendment be supported by the 275, 280 (point 4. The existing Specific Area and extension both cover sub-alpine habitat Trust, any development application within the amendment area would be 3), 287, 293, that contains four threatened plant species that could be impacted by any required to submit an assessment of impact on geoheritage values, 305, 328, 329, development (Australina pusilla subsp. muelleri, Euphrasia gibbsiae subsp. Chapter 8B, s2.6, Issue 2. A2.3 and P2.3. 330, 331, 332, wellingtonensis, Brachyglottis brunonis, Carex gunniana). The Pinnacle 338, 345, 347, Specific Area should be restricted to the current boundary to minimize The impact of any development on existing recreation activities such as 348 (point 4 impact on threatened plant species. rock climbing is always part of the assessment process, before any decision only), 357, 400, is made on a proposal. 402 (points 3 and 4), 403, 404, Should the amendment be approved by the Trust, any development 405, 406, 408, application within the amendment area would be required to submit an

Appendices 55 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 409, 413, 449, assessment of impact on flora and fauna including any threatened species, 450, 452, 460 if found, and include measures to remedy or mitigate any impacts. Chapter (points1 and 3), 8B, s2.6, Issue 2. It should be noted that the species listed in the 461 (points 1 representation are also likely to occur within the current Pinnacle Specific and 3), 484, 487, Area. 504, 506, 540, 545

105 The draft Amending Plan makes no mention whatever of its purpose. Opposition although slightly ambiguous. Though it can be inferred from media commentary why this is being done. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the Not opposed to suitable changes being made to public amenities on the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as mountain, though object to the inverted developmental process that has described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. been deployed for this mooted development.

106, 107, 318, Please reject any expansion of the ’Pinnacle Specific Area’ at the top of Mt Opposition noted. 371, 436, 541 Wellington. The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act Remainder of 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an reps 107, 371, If the Trust does not listen to the people of Hobart and gives in to the amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and 436, 541, raise developer, it will be open season for any developer to get the boundary consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and similar issues to extended to suit their own particular needs, rather than what is in the make its final decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the those in the interests of the people of Hobart, the traditional owners or the Mountain. Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when Residents approved by the Governor. Opposed to the Object to the proposed extension, in particular because no valid reason has Cable Car been given for the proposed extension and a very valid and well articulated The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to provide reasons for a (ROCC) statement of purpose needs to be made public if any reduction of the Mt proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a Change.org Wellington Natural area is even to be considered. Recent publicity about a particular proposed change does not invalidate the process set out in the petition). See proposal to build a cable car, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the Act. As required in s 24A of the Act the Trust informs its opinion on the rep 104 etc. sole purpose of the proposed extension is for the cable car. draft Amending Plan based on the representations received.

112, 124, 136 Saddened that the organization which should be thoughtful caretakers of Opposition noted. our magnificent mountain would be considering further development on its The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the

56 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Pinnacle. Although the proposal in front of the Trust is an expansion of the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high ’Pinnacle Specific Area', the purpose of such an extension is suspicious. Any visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed extension could in time lead to development. amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a Two particular reasons for objection are: suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use - The impact on the natural environment. and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an - The visual impact from Hobart, and from the walking tracks on kunanyi. actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual Support though, thoughtful, considered and low impact development in or other impacts can be made. The management plan does not require a areas below the Pinnacle and the upper reaches of kunanyi. The Springs and development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss Fern Tree in particular. of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 Better signage and interpretation panels would go a long way in enriching Visual Sensitivity. Impacts on natural values are also required to be visitor experience there. assessed – see Issues 2, 3 and 9. The WPMP acknowledges the continuing need to maintain and improve signage in the Park.

113, 321, 322, Request that the Wellington Park Management Trust DO NOT expand the Opposition noted. boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area. Mt Wellington/kunyani is one of The management plan gives strong regard to the intrinsic and spiritual the rare mountains in the world that overlooks a city but is relatively values held by many with regard to the Park and to kunanyi / Mount untouched by human structures like cable car towers and restaurants. Wellington in particular. These values are deeply held by many and by Research evidence demonstrates that human contact with nature is good their very nature are hard to define and describe. For many people any for health and wellbeing. Further development on the mountain would man-made structures impact on their sense of spiritual attachment to the mean a diminished experience. mountain. For others it is a more sliding scale and they are happy to allow for some sensitive development. For many they more strongly relate to Keep Mt. Wellington as near natural as possible, as it has been for the recreational experience the mountain offers rather than to its spiritual thousands of years in the hands of traditional Aboriginal custodians. presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of these Mt. Wellington has significant cultural significance to the Tasmanian values. The WPMP attempts to recognise and balance these values and Aboriginal population, who regard it as a sacred site, and would be rightly these values will all be part of the Trust’s consideration, along with the affronted if this expansion (which is largely to facilitate the cable car representations received with regard to this amendment. implementation) were to go ahead. (rep 321) The current WPMP allows for a range of developments to be considered, Mt Wellington is already a tourist drawcard, with it being a regular fixture as per Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any development proposal would

Appendices 57 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response on cruise ship visits, for example. It is unlikely that visitation numbers be assessed against the relevant requirements and standards of the would increase significantly if the boundaries of the 'Pinnacle Specific Zone' WPMP. were to be expanded, with the likely concomitant implementation of the proposed cable car. (rep 321)

117, 224, 269 Do not support any change to the Pinnacle Specific Area which will allow Opposition noted. additional development of the area above the Organ Pipes on Mount The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the Wellington. Any significant development in this area will be visible from WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high Hobart and will change the view of Mount Wellington from the city. visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development Support some additional facilities on Mount Wellington but this should be proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a limited to the current Pinnacle area and/or focused on the Springs. suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an Potential instability of the amendment area. actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual impacts can be made. The WPMP does not require a development to be The push for additional access of the mountain, especially in the winter can invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss of visual values or be achieved by improving the road access and looking at other transport adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, options. Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity. The issue of continued road access is given recognition in the WPMP. Increased visitor numbers when high fire risk increase the difficult of closing Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 discusses the Sustainable Transport System, the Park when temperatures are extreme, especially when a facility then endorsed by the Trust in 2009. loses revenue. S5.2.1 (12) Bushfire – Policy and Actions, states ‘Close the Park to all public access during periods of Extreme and/or Catastrophic Fire Danger rating as declared by the Tasmanian Fire Service’. This would need to be considered by any development proponent when preparing their business case.

118, 324, Opposed to the boundary amendments the Mt Wellington Trust is Opposition noted. This representation was submitted as part of the Remainder of proposing to undertake. The fact that these amendments are being change.org online petition but it also raised an additional point separate to rep 118 is the undertaken at the behest of a developer is extremely concerning. While those in the petition, thus it has been included as a separate same as the encouraging and enabling people to experience the mountain should be a representation. Residents priority, any such consideration must maintain the integrity of the

58 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Opposed to the mountain. Mt Wellington is very special and you are entrusted with The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act Cable Car ensuring that its unique qualities are preserved. To propose to change the 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an (ROCC) boundary of the Mt Wellington because a developer, with a divisive and amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and Change.org contentious plan for a radical development has asked you, is a clear breach consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and petition). See of that trust. make its final decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the rep 104 etc Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor. No actual development application has been received by the Trust.

121, 323, 351 Please do not spoil a wild mountaintop with man-made infrastructure. Opposition noted. Value wild and free areas. Mt Wellington is Hobart's greatest scenic asset – but only if we continue to manage it sensitively. No further development should be permitted.

As the global climate alters in the future, it is critical that we protect these sensitive areas fully to allow all species to be able to have the greatest chance of adapting to these changes (rep 351)

There is adequate access for the elderly and disabled Tasmanians. (rep 121)

122, 343, Strongly opposed to any extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area, and believe Opposition noted. any proposed amendments should have been addressed in the recent and Should the amendment be approved by the Trust, any development comprehensive management plan review. application received would be assessed against all of the relevant requirements and standards of the WPMP, including an assessment on Anyone who has stood and looked over this area from the carefully natural values and impacts on flora and fauna - (Chapter 8B, s2.6, Issue 2). designed and restricted boardwalks below the Observation Shelter, knows that this is a habitat of extraordinary natural beauty. It is a fragile area of recognised botanic as well as aesthetic significance, containing threatened sub-alpine species that could be significantly impacted by further development. Development in this region, in close proximity to the Organ Pipes, would dramatically alter the character of the mountain.

Appendices 59 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 125, 311, 327, The Pinnacle Specific Area should not have any further development which Opposition noted. 463, will change the mountains appearance. The existing Pinnacle Specific Area already allows for certain permitted and discretionary uses and developments to be considered, as described in A Cable car is inappropriate (rep 311) Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP.

Lots of other places have a cable car. We don’t need one. Instead we could No specific cable car development proposal has been submitted, thus its develop more cooperative ways of accessing the mountain.eg lots of merits and credibility cannot be assessed at this stage. minibuses from designated hotels and car parks (rep 463)

137 Further development in this area will impact current users seeking to take in Opposition noted Other points the beautiful view. Now they will have to look down over the roof of the The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the raised are the cable-car building and the cables unless they pay for the privilege of an WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high same as those in unobstructed view. Presumably a new road needs to be constructed down visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed the ROCC to (initially) the construction site. This road will either be steep or need to amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development petition see rep be extensive. It will alter the water flows and disrupt this part of the proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a 104 etc. ecosystem decreasing absorption in the extension area and increasing suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use runoff below it. It is unwise to build a significant construction closer to and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an what is an unstable geological landform. actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual or other impacts can be made. The WPMP does not require a development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity.

138, 395, 546 Write to express surprise and disappointment at the Wellington Park Opposition noted. Representations 138 and 546 are by the same person, (same rep as Management Trust’s apparent support for the development of a cable car with additional points raised in the second submission. 138) to the pinnacle of Mt Wellington as proposed by “MWCC”. The proposal would inflict a dramatic and irreversible scar on Mt The representation raises many issues (some refereeing to areas outside Wellington. It would impact the visual amenity of Mt Wellington from near the Park) the majority of which are pertinent to a cable car proposal. and far; would have damaging environmental impacts throughout its path; However, the Trust has not received any development proposal for a cable and would be a shocking invasion into the South Hobart community. car. The proposed amendment is to extend the Pinnacle Specific Area. The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development

60 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response As a resident of South Hobart, it is extremely concerning to consider the proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in impact that the proposal would have to our community. The proposed the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. route would destroy the peaceful, natural bush setting of South Hobart, This includes facilities associated with a cable car. Any proposal received cutting a massive swathe from the historic Cascade brewery, through our would need to meet all relevant standards of the WPMP and in particular suburb and on its way to the mountain. The cable cars would travel straight S2.6 Standards for Use and Development in the Pinnacle Specific Area in past the front window of numerous houses, an extraordinary invasion of chapter 8B. These are designed to ensure that Park values are protected. privacy, imparting visual and noise pollution that would not be acceptable in Many of the issues raised by this representation would then need to be any community – let alone in Hobart, where we enjoy and expect a clean, considered but in relation to this amendment cannot currently be natural and peaceful environment. addressed.

The construction of a station at the Cascade Brewery would ruin a Hobart The proposed amendment has been advertised by the Trust in order to icon, one that has built its brand on its natural and unmolested give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the environment and access to pristine clean water. The station would require extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described extensive development near Hillborough Road to accommodate parking and in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion traffic. The additional traffic would also be a difficult to manage hazard in on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and this part of the community. then produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning The mid-station changeover point at Golden Gully Park would require an commission for its review. enormous structure, terminating two separate cable car systems. It and the next tower above (allegedly 75 m tall) would loom over South Hobart homes, particularly those in Strickland Avenue, Jubilee Road and Old Farm Road.

In addition to the intolerable invasion of privacy, there would be significant noise pollution, both mechanical from the operation of the cable cars and from people from the rooves of the proposed “Cabrio” style of gondola featuring an open air-deck. We need to be realistic about the actual economic benefits of the proposal to the Tasmanian community. Even if the hyperbolic claims by MWCC about annual usage numbers prove to be correct, it is important to realise that usage of the cable car itself would only benefit the MWCC and its investors. An economic benefit to the broader Tasmania community could only be

Appendices 61 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response realised if the cable car caused people to travel to Tasmania who otherwise would not have come. Mt Wellington is the attraction, and it is already here. It is folly to believe that the cable car would increase the number of people visiting Tasmania. Impacts on other recreational users and businesses operating in the Park Instead, the cable car would displace other methods of gaining access to the cannot be assessed until a specific development proposal with the mountain – there are already many perfectly viable options today. Many of required studies attached, has been submitted. Impacts on other those options are provided by local Hobart businesses; if successful, the recreational and business users are always a consideration when any new cable car would negatively impact these. development or project is being considered.

To recoup the very significant construction costs, ticket costs would have to be high. The MWCC estimates an adult return fare of between $25 and $45. We can guess that this might equate to between $75 and $135 for a family return fare. A more realistic figure might be found in the pricing of the Cairns Sky Rail, which currently charges a family $182.50 for a return fare. Such fares would be prohibitive, and would certainly limit the amount of usage by the local community. The idea that a typical Hobart family would gain easier access to the mountain on a snowy day is a fantasy.

The proposal demonstrates a total lack of regard for the concerns and values of the community; it is interesting to note that minimising impact to residents is not one of MWCCs stated “design parameters”. This is not a good proposal.

There are some developments that may be appropriate for Mt Wellington. But, in our well intentioned haste to find solutions to Tasmania’s economic challenges, we owe it to ourselves to be smart about backing proposals that will actually bring economic gain and will not cause irreversible damage to our natural assets and our communities.

The construction of a major structure to support a cable car development would require very large scale excavation and / or explosive activity, which The WPMP already allows for ‘infrastructure associated with Potential would represent a significant risk to the geological stability of the Organ Transport Modes’ to be considered in the Natural and Recreation Zone

62 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Pipes. It is of concern to note that the current proposal by the Mount within Wellington Park. These would need to meet the standards for use Wellington Cableway Company also includes the construction of a large and development in Chapter 8 of the WPMP. mid-station tower much closer to the top of the Organ Pipes and outside the extension. Although it is difficult to speculate why the draft Amending Plan does not also cover this structure, it must be recognised that – if it were to proceed, consideration for this would necessarily follow. (rep 395) 142 AGAINST any proposal to install a cable car on our beautiful, iconic Mt Opposition noted. Wellington. Tourists come to Tasmania to see nature at its most natural; The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi and do not come here for the technology. The Mountain already has an / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the Observation Building that's perfectly sited to view the sunrise -- but is never ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as open then. I would much prefer to see an investment in a snowplow, a described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. It is not sandtruck (we're an island; we have sand!), and a few more guardrails in specifically for a cable car but will allow for its assessment, if approved. No order to make the pinnacle accessible in winter. specific cable car development proposal has been submitted.

The issue of access to the mountain in snow conditions is covered in section 9.2.1 of the WPMP.

144 (Additional Concerned that no reason has been provided by the Trust as to why the Opposition and concerns noted. Points 3 and 4 in extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area has been proposed, yet the timing of The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give this rep are the this proposal coincides with the promotion of a cable car and associated the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension same as those in infrastructure by a private developer, along with public statements to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the ROCC petition requesting such boundary adjustments. As there has been no development WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the see rep 104, etc), application submitted prior to this request by WPMT for public comment, it draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then 151 seems pre-emptive to ask for public opinion in the absence of any critical produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report details. Indeed, it suggests that the cable car proponent is 'massaging' and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for proper process in order to further his personal agenda, since any concerns its review. raised about the appropriateness of such a development in a location still currently within the Natural Zone can potentially be disregarded due to the absence of any development application.

I note that the maximum height and area of structures in the Pinnacle Specific Area, as specified in Section 4B of the Management Plan, will be

Appendices 63 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response retained.

In the absence of critical details, I still wish to register my objection to the proposed change to the Pinnacle Specific Area based on the following:

1. Visibility from the city: The proposed extension is on the most visible face of Mt Wellington, and is directly above the Organ Pipes, one of the most unique and iconic features of the mountain. Any development in this area would compromise the visual amenity for both locals and tourists. This would be particularly true during snow periods where vertical building surfaces would stand out very starkly against the snow. I regard any Points 3 & 4 are the same as those raised in the Residents against the Cable assurances that a development should have low visual impact with Car petition (change.org). see Rep 104) suspicion, as past experience has shown that reality frequently fails to measure up with assurances.

2. Skyline preservation arguments are only valid when the area is viewed from a considerable distance away, from a particular angle or under certain weather conditions. Any development would have to be of minimal height, something that would not be possible without excavation and its associated environmental damage. In the event of lack of commercial viability, Should development occur in the future, the Trust has a responsibility to removal of infrastructure would be extremely expensive and virtually ensure it is in the best location to minimise impacts on Park values. impossible without leaving a noticeable scar.

5. The lack of detail about the reasons for the proposed boundary changes raises the concern that more amendments will be made to the Wellington Park Management Plan in the future, and the guidelines within the Management Plan that are designed to protect the mountain, its environment and its values will gradually be whittled away, with Mt Wellington becoming more a private commercial enterprise and less a park for local people to freely enjoy.

145 As an Experiential Sustainability Educator I regularly utilize the mountain Opposition noted.

64 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response with school groups, as I know other educators do also. This work focuses on The management plan gives strong regard to the intrinsic and spiritual 're-wilding' children as a remedy to increasing alienation of children from values held by many with regard to the Park and to kunanyi / Mount the natural world, universally recognized as Nature Defect Disorder. The Wellington in particular. These values are deeply held by many and by wild nature of our mountain acts as an integrated, holistic mirror to their very nature are hard to define and describe. For many people any children's wild inner nature, reconnecting them with themselves, their man-made structures impact on their sense of spiritual attachment to the peers and the more than human world. This is vital work if we aspire to mountain. For others it is a more sliding scale and they are happy to allow make our future life choices support greater sustainability. for some sensitive development. For many they more strongly relate to Kunanyi is an important and vital place of educational exploration and is the recreational experience the mountain offers rather than to its spiritual unique in Australia due to its close proximity to a major capital city. Please presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of these do not endanger this by allowing inappropriate development which will values. The WPMP attempts to recognise and balance these values and overshadow and impinge on the unique qualities Mt. Wellington offers, these values will all be part of the Trusts consideration, along with the both to this generation of children and to those far into the future. We representations received with regard to this amendment. have a choice. What sort of ancestors do we want to be? The WPMP however does allow for a number of potential developments to be able to be considered by the Trust, as per Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP 2013. Any proposal would be assessed against the relevant requirements and standards of the management plan.

148 Object to the extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area into the Natural Zone Opposition noted. primarily due to it's proximity to the Organ Pipes. Because of their Should the amendment be supported by the Trust, any development geological instability any further development may cause to 'the Pipes'. application within the amendment area would be required to meet the Changes in drainage patterns (exacerbated by freeze/thaw), excavations requirement and standards of S2.6 in chapter 8A and in particular Issue 6 – and blasting may all subtly (or dramatically) cause rockfall or landslide in Environmental Hazards (a) Regolith. this area. It would be impossible to prove whether the cause was natural or man-made meaning any regulations imposing fines for degradation would be unenforceable and restoration impossible (and the developer would know it). There would also be considerable pressure to close the area for climbing/walking if a rockfall occurred (irrespective of provable cause) to minimise litigation risks to the developer/Trust.

I regularly take interstate visitors to the summit (as most Hobartians do) Any proponent of a major development in the Park would have to and neither myself nor our visitors have ever expressed a need for further demonstrate the commercial viability of their proposal. development of any sort at the summit. A predictable commercial outcome

Appendices 65 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response for the proposed use will be profits will be taken by the developer until such time as the infrastructure needs replacing. The developer will cry poor, requiring government entities to step in and either subsidise the venture, or No development proposal that would involve the proposed extension has pay for the removal of aging infrastructure, leaving scars on our mountain been received. The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to and holes in our pockets. provide reasons for a proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a particular proposed change does not invalidate the Asking for an extension to the specific area without detailing the proposed process set out in the Act. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust development to take place there is irresponsible and does not allow for informs its opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the informed debate. representations received. Any development proposal in the Pinnacle Specific Area would need to The Pipes are a recreational, scenic and environmental icon. I object to any meet the standards for use and development in Chapter 8B, S2.6 of the change in the management plan which puts these values at risk for WPMP. These are designed to ensure that developments do not (dubious) commercial or tourism gains. compromise Park values.

152 Concerned about the consideration of any expansion of the ‘Pinnacle Opposition noted. Specific Area’. The Wellington Management Plan was developed through No actual development application has been received by the Trust. an extensive process of community consultation and is designed to protect Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to the mountains cultural, social and environmental values. amend the Management Plan. The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to The Wellington Park Management Plan is to protect and preserve the comment on how they perceive the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area natural beauty of the land or any features of the land's natural beauty. may impact on the values described in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of Cannot understand how consideration of an extension of land added to the the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on Pinnacle development zone is fulfilling this aspect of the plan. the representations received and then produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the The proposed amendment would be clearly visible from Hobart. This would representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for its review. fundamentally change the nature of Mt Wellington. The integrity of the Wellington Park would be irrevocably damaged. Expansion of the ‘Pinnacle The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi Specific Area’ would threaten the majestic beauty of the mountain, the / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the geomorphology of the Organ Pipes and area above the Organ Pipes. This ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as area must be protected. described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific The application for changes does not comply with; Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to

66 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response (a) the provision of recreational and tourism uses and be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section opportunities consistent with the purposes specified in paragraphs (b) to s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) (e); Building Height. Until an actual development application is submitted, no (b) the preservation or protection of the fauna or flora contained in or on assessments as to visual or other impacts can be made. The management the land; plan does not require a development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to (c) the preservation or protection of the natural beauty of the land or of any minimise or remedy any loss of visual values or adverse impacts on the features of the land of natural beauty or scenic interest; character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual (d) the preservation or protection of any features of the land quality and amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity. being features of historical, Aboriginal, archaeological, scientific, architectural or geomorphological interest; Page 3 of the WPMP describes the purposes for which the Park is reserved (e) the protection of the water catchment values of the land. as described in (a) to (e) of this representation. The guiding statements and standards contained in the management plan are included in order to assist in making decisions around various proposals for use and development in the Park as well as for guiding ongoing management activities. In reality a continuous balancing of these objectives occurs as decisions are made but in the absence of a specific development proposal it is not possible to make judgements as to whether the proposed amendment meets all of the purposes for which the Park is reserved. 153, 197, Against the plan to have a cable car on Mt Wellington. It is unnecessary Opposition noted. unsightly and environmentally detrimental. The proposed amendment is not specifically for a cable car. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / Mount The cable car envisaged would cross the organ pipes and impact on the Wellington where development proposals which fit within the quintessential feature of the mountain. Any structure on top of the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as mountain would be unsightly. described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered.

Believe a cable car would be unviable and cost the Tasmanian taxpayers. Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. Until an actual development application is submitted, no assessments as to visual impacts can be made. The management plan does not require a development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise

Appendices 67 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response or remedy any loss of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity. No development application for the PSA has been received by the Trust.

173, 288 The proposed extension to the Wellington Park plan map 2, 2A, S4 is an area Opposition noted (although not explicitly stated.) quite visible from most areas of Hobart, any structure built on this ground Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle (of which some of it is made up of scree unstable material) would be highly Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact visible and unsightly and would spoil the whole vista of the very thing Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, people enjoy to view of Mt Wellington. There is also the question of the section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design Cascade fault system or earth movement lines which run approx. from the (a) Building Height. Until an actual development application is submitted, organ pipes down through Macfarlane gully tip site and on to Sandy Bay. no assessments as to visual or other impacts such, as slope stability, can be This should bear some consideration when any major structural planning is made. The management plan does not require a development to be being proposed. Details of the cascade fault system can be viewed at invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or remedy any loss of visual values or http://www.tams.asn.au/2005_Conf/David%20Leaman.pdf adverse impacts on the character of the affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity. Impact on wildlife (rep 288) Impacts on flora and fauna are required to be assessed at the time of receiving a development application.

176, 180, 188 Agree with the re-zoning as proposed, it makes sense and hopefully will Support noted. lead to a better case for the much needed cable car for which I believe The proposed amendment is not specifically for a cable car. there is very wide support. (rep 176)

This re-zoning is essential to allow the best possible proposal to be put forward by MWCC. An imaginary line on a map should not stop the public from seeing the least intrusive proposal.

The proponents of the Cable Car should be given an opportunity to submit their development proposal.

191 Support the proposed change to the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area Support noted.

68 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response management zone as shown on the draft Amending Plan. The proposed amendment is not specifically for a cable car. The proposed Some points that are significant to my support of the development are amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / Mount these:- Wellington where development proposals which fit within the • Much thought has gone into the positioning of the visitor centre / cable ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as car station so as not to add to the already visible structures on the summit described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. and the amendment will allow this to occur. • The summit already has a number of structures both old and new. I don’t consider the majority of these to be pleasing to the eye and certainly the summit is not pristine by any means. • Upgrading the road, developing the Springs or running the cable car from the Springs will cause a great deal more damage to the environment than the one proposed. Although there are some issues with larger vehicles passing on some • Pinnacle Road is not suited to large volumes of traffic. sections of Pinnacle Road no requirement to widen the road has been • The State needs some development and interest and adventure tourism is identified. being pushed as a way forward for us. This type of development is right in that bracket. It was even made public that this is an avenue the State would like to pursue to increase tourism. Combine this development with the trails on the mountain the Pinnacle Road and future development of trails for walking, running and mountain biking and we have an amazing prospect for health and fitness for the general population as well as tourists. • When there is a good fall of snow there is rarely access to the summit on the day of the fall. The snow at the Springs is not usually significant enough to last long and the area and surrounds get a real working over. When access to the summit is available the snow is quite often softening and very wet making for a tough time for families and tourists to really enjoy the experience. Not to mention parking is still a problem with the number of people. Give people access to the snow when the road is closed with an opportunity to get warm and not have to drive down a narrow road.

192 I do not object to the cable car proposal. Objections noted. The proposed amendment is not specifically for a cable car. The proposed I do object to the lack of visitor facilities, place to enjoy the view in some amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / Mount

Appendices 69 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response comfort with a coffee or light snack. Wellington where development proposals which fit within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as I would object strongly to any closure of the Pinnacle Road to force people described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. to use the cable car. Chapter 9, section 9.2.2 of the WPMP discusses the Sustainable Transport System, endorsed by the Trust in 2009. This system recognises that a primary means of transport for the Park is by private vehicle.

194, 248, 476 Oppose the proposal to extend the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area. Opposition noted. Do not support the idea that one developer can seek to dictate the The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act development area on the summit of Mt Wellington for a private, 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an commercial development. amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and Am extremely concerned about the wide range of impacts that any make its final decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the development on the mountain would have. Tasmanian Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the Governor. Believe that the beauty and natural values of Mt Wellington are of enormous intrinsic value to this city, both for locals who gain daily The proposed amendment is not specifically for a cable car but is to extend inspiration from living in such a beautiful city and for visitors who come the Pinnacle Specific Area. The amendment, if approved, will allow here because it is a relatively untouched destination. The mountain should consideration of any development proposal which fits within the be protected for the people of Hobart and for the benefits of generations to ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as come, who will be able to experience a visit to a beautiful, vibrant city which described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. There is currently no specific has not fallen prey to the short-term gains of a single developer. development proposal for a cable car. Any development proposal will need to meet all relevant standards of the WPMP and in particular S2.6 What other city on the planet has such a stunningly, largely unspoilt vista? A Standards for Use and Development in the Pinnacle Specific Area in cable car on it will not make anyone’s heart sing.(rep 478) chapter 8B. These are designed to ensure that Park values are protected.

Likely that the cable car would run across the magnificent Organ Pipes. How crazy is that visually.

The Trust needs to understand that the emperor has no clothes – never has done, never will do.(rep 476)

70 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

Have grave fears that funding for any development projects will end up falling on rate payers.

199 Strongly object to the proposed changes to the Pinnacle Specific Area. Opposition noted (1) Considering this amendment to the Management Plan without No application for a cable car development has been received by the Trust. considering the cable car is absurd. The Wellington Park Management Trust Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to (WPMT) has initiated this process as the direct result of an application from amend the Management Plan. The proposed amendment has been the Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC). The two are advertised by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to inseparably linked. comment on how they perceive the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area If this proposed change was to happen and a cable car was built then one may impact on the values described in the plan. As required in s 24A of direct consequence would be a tower to support the cable car at the the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on pinnacle terminus. This tower would be located in the Natural Zone. Clearly the representations received and then produces a report on their the changes to the PSA cannot be considered in isolation as they lead assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the directly to other impacts in other parts of the Park, related to the cable car. representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for its review.

(2) Visual Impact The WPMP already allows for ‘infrastructure associated with Potential The PSA is one of the most sensitive areas of the mountain and the area Transport Modes’ to be considered in the Natural and Recreation Zone which is to be added to that zone is critically sensitive. When viewed from within Wellington Park. These would need to meet the standards for use above the area proposed is in direct line of sight to Hobart. This is of course and development in Chapter 8 of the WPMP. the iconic view that people visit the summit for. The impact of any development in the new area would significantly devalue that view. The The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi very fact that the viewing platform is where it is reflects the importance of / Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the the view to the East from the summit. ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as The other critical visual impact is from outside the Park. The people of described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. Should Hobart and visitors alike all look to the mountain and it is to the Organ Pipes the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific and directly above that we look. Whether it is from the South in Kingston or Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to the North at Glenorchy or directly from the CBD of Hobart that view would be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section be forever devalued if any man made structure was built in the proposed s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) zone. It is not possible to protect the visual amenity of the mountain and Building Height. Until an actual development application is submitted, no allow development in this zone. assessments as to visual impacts can be made. The WPMP does not require a development to be invisible but to be sited ‘to minimise or

Appendices 71 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response (3)Organ Pipes – Physical considerations. remedy any loss of visual values or adverse impacts on the character of the Many people access the areas around the Organ Pipes regularly. The affected area,’ Chapter 8b, s2.6, Issue 5 – landscape, visual quality and enjoyment of climbing on the Organ Pipes would be diminished due to the amenity, P5.1 Visual Sensitivity. previously mentioned visual impacts. Other impacts would include noise associated with any development. The enjoyment of the mountain by many users is associated with the peace and tranquillity and lack of man made Impact on other Park users is a consideration with all projects and noise. This includes climbers, bushwalkers, mountain bike riders, hang proposals in Wellington Park. gliders, to name a few. Development closer to the edge of the Organ Pipes would bring noise associated with any development in the zone closer to those people. Development within the zone could well result in destabilisation of the Organ Pipes. No changes should be made without first making an Should the amendment be supported by the Trust, any development assessment of the geological stability of the area. In the PSA plan chapter 8, application within the amendment area would be required to submit an issue 6 identifies the need to conduct appropriate studies where assessment of impact on geoheritage values, Chapter 8B, s2.6, Issue 2. development is on land with a slope greater than 6 degrees. Since this A2.3 and P2.3 proposed change to the PSA involves land which is all sloping at more than 6 degrees the necessary studies should be carried out before the changes are made. Since these changes are being made as the result of a request by MWCC the cost of these studies should be at their expense. Cultural Connection to the Organ Pipes As arguably the most striking feature of the mountain the Organ Pipes hold a place dear in the hearts of all Tasmanians. Any development near the Organ Pipes will affect the way people feel about them, and consequently about the mountain as a whole. (4) Sense of Place. In Tasmania we develop a keen sense of place and where we belong. The mountain is a major part of that. Even a small scale The WPMP gives strong regard to the intrinsic and spiritual values and the development would be devastating. It is not a matter of size. The way strong sense of place held by many with regard to the Park and to kunanyi people feel about the mountain is almost more important than the physical / Mount Wellington in particular. These values are deeply held, and by impacts we can see and hear, particularly for the Aboriginal community. their very nature are hard to define and describe. For some any man- There should be studies done to ascertain the impact of these proposed made structures impact on their sense of spiritual attachment to the changes on the Aboriginal heritage of the mountain. These studies should mountain. For others it seems to be a more sliding scale and they are be paid for by the developer who initiated this process. happy to allow for some sensitive development. Others more strongly

72 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response relate to the recreational experience the Park offers rather than to its (5) The Springs spiritual presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of The area at The Springs has been identified as the most appropriate for these values. The management plan attempts to recognise and balance commercial development on the mountain. To extend the PSA denies this these values and they will all be part of the Trusts consideration, along fact. with the representations received with regard to this amendment. However the WPMP does allow for a number of potential developments to (6) 2013 Management Plan Changes be considered by the Trust, as per Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any The changes made to the management plan in 2013 created a PSA in which proposal would be assessed against the relevant requirements and development could be considered. Many people disagreed with those standards of the WPMP. changes. The area now being considered for inclusion in the PSA was at that time deemed to be worthy of protecting in the Natural Zone. Nothing has changed since then. If it was worth protecting in 2013 nothing has changed since then to make it less worthy of protection. All of the attributes that made the area above the Organ Pipes special in 2013 are still there. This proposed change simply highlights the fact that this area is probably the most significant and important on the whole mountain.

(7) Death by a thousand cuts There is in some peoples mind the idea that this is just a minor change. It is not. The changes to the PSA in 2013 were significant. If we add further to those changes we risk losing the very essence of what makes Mt Wellington so special in our thinking. The existing infrastructure is not insignificant but with improved technology we may see a day when the communications towers could be removed. The current viewing shelter could also be relocated. We must not allow incremental devaluing of the mountains values. In my opinion the very integrity of the WPMT has been compromised in even considering this change at the direct request of a private developer. This precedent will now allow the management plan to be questioned and possibly amended for every proposal put to the trust. There seems little point even having a management plan if development proposals do not make any effort to conform to it.

Appendices 73 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

209, 240 No change to the Pinnacle development zone is required. Opposition noted.  Existing Pinnacle Zone is large enough. The proposed extension would add an additional 1.1 hectares to the  Development on eastern side will be very visible. Pinnacle Specific Area. The area of land that is the subject of the proposed  One development will lead to another amendment is currently zoned ‘Natural.’ This zone already allows for  Access in snow best addressed by a robust vehicular access system ‘infrastructure associated with Potential Transport Modes’ to be  Impact on fragile alpine flora and on water quality and runoff. considered but prohibits ‘Food Services,’ ‘Tourism Operation’s and ‘Park Management Office.’ The amendment would include this land in the Pinnacle Specific Area which would allow for any development which fits into the three currently prohibited categories to become discretionary and be able to be considered. Any proposal would still be required to meet all of the relevant assessment criteria and standards in the WPMP. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual or other impacts cannot be made.

213, 239 Strongly oppose any extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area on Mt Opposition noted. Wellington as proposed in the Draft Amending Plan August 2014: Should it be approved by the Trust, any development proposal in the extended PSA would be assessed against the relevant guidelines, policies 1. The area proposed is a fragile alpine environment that can be easily and standards of the WPMP. Until an actual development proposal is irreparably damaged by any development. received any impacts on park values cannot be fully assessed.

2. The area proposed was considered for the Observation Shelter before it was sited in its current location; however the area was considered to be too unstable and fragile for even that small development, so why even consider it now.

3. Development in amendment area would block views from lookout areas

4. Area to North of WIN tower better and already in Pinnacle Specific Area

214 Oppose the proposed extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area management Opposition noted. zone on the basis of its impact on relict vegetation, the disturbance The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within an

74 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response associated with building and using any structures and the adverse effect on area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an views of Mt Wellington from the greater Hobart area. Specifically: area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any 1. The proposed extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area management zone development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be has a quite uniform and generally easterly facing slope that extends up to conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 the flattening of the pinnacle ridge and is highly visible from the city of Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Hobart. Because of the nature of the slope, any structure within the Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being proposed extension is likely to be clearly visible from the city with submitted, conclusions as to visual, vegetation and other impacts cannot structures that are of more than minimal size being clearly silhouetted be made. against the skyline.

2. Much of the vegetation in the Pinnacle area that was not burnt during the 1967 fires is located within the proposed extension. Development of any structures within this area will have an adverse impact on this vegetation.

3.The Pinnacle Specific Area management zone as specified in the 2013 Management Plan includes an area in the north that is of a size similar to or greater than the proposed extension and where structures would have lower visual impact when viewed from the greater Hobart area than in the proposed extension.

216, 306, Strongly oppose the proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area on Mt Opposition noted Wellington. Rezoning so close to the enactment of The Plan (January 1 No actual development application has been received by the Trust. 2014) is an unnecessary costly precedent and fails to respect and Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to acknowledge the lengthy consultation process only recently undertaken. amend the WPMP. The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on how they Extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area on Mt Wellington would allow for perceive the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the inappropriate development to occur close to the top of the Organ Pipes. values described in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust Development in this area is grossly inappropriate for the following reasons: informs it opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the • Development in the proposed extension area, even if ‘set into the hill’, representations received and then produces a report on their assessment would be visible from Hobart and its surrounds, providing unsightly visual and decision and submits the report and all of the representations to the amenity, thereby impacting the natural aesthetic values of Mt Tasmanian Planning commission for its review.

Appendices 75 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Wellington. • Increased visitation accompanying any development within the proposed In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, extension area would significantly impact (by trampling, littering etc) the conclusions as to visual, vegetation and other impacts cannot be made. natural values including some plant species listed under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995) around the summit. TheWPMP gives strong regard to the intrinsic and spiritual values held by • Development within the proposed area on the summit would incur many with regard to the Park and to kunanyi / Mount Wellington in significant costly associated issues such as provision of fresh water and particular. These values are deeply held by many and by their very nature removal or treatment of waste. are hard to define and describe. For many people any man-made • Development close to the top of the Organ Pipes would reduce safety for structures impact on their sense of spiritual attachment to the mountain. rock climbers as dislodged rocks, litter, oil etc from any nearby or For others it is a more sliding scale and they are happy to allow for some overhead infrastructure could fall on and potentially harm climbers. sensitive development. For many they more strongly relate to the • Many Australians and visitors, both indigenous and non-indigenous, recreational experience the mountain offers rather than to its spiritual highly value the spiritual and cultural values of the mountain. Despite presence and for others again it is perhaps a complex mix of all of these limited infrastructure currently on the summit, Mt Wellington retains its values. The WPMP attempts to recognise and balance these values and naturalness and beauty; values appreciated by many. Development on these values will all be part of the Trusts consideration, along with the the summit would markedly negatively affect spiritual and cultural representations received with regard to this amendment. values. (rep 216)

217 Rep received from ‘interested party’ but no further detail provided. 227 Oppose the amendment Opposition noted Additional points raised by this rep Object to any further development that diminished the natural wilderness. same as in ROCC rep (see Rep 104 The proposed extension would encroach on the world class rock climbing etc), area – “The Organ Pipes”. This area has been a feature in local and 376, 488, 496, international rock climbing books and magazines since the 1980’s. As rock 510, 520 climbing areas go, it is unique in that it offers multi-pitch climbs in a sub- Other points raised addressed in ROCC rep – 104 etc alpine environment, within close proximity of a capital city. No development application for the area has been received by the Trust, The climbing area known as the Amphitheater will potentially be destroyed thus a full assessment of impacts and issues relating to geological stability by this cable car. Even if somehow a cable car is built without blasting the cannot be made. columns, the existence of this thing will ruin the place for many climbers.

76 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response (rep 488) Impacts on other recreational users likewise cannot be assessed until a specific development proposal, with the required studies attached, has This current proposal will see the destruction of the best rock climbs on the been submitted. These are always a consideration when any new mountain. This proposal is a slap in the face for a user group who have development or project is being considered. been sustainably and respectfully using Mount Wellington for many decades. (rep 520)

Clear evidence of geological instability exists (Mercury, 2014c; WPMT 2003; CCT, 1993) with the Wellington Park Management Trust reporting ten incidents of rockfall between 1986 and 2003. Most of the rockfall has emanated from the immediate vicinity of the Organ Pipes. As this area is demonstrably unstable, blasting is likely to put at risk the structural integrity of the area. (rep 496)

Inherently full of both great risk and immense reward where getting it wrong has serious consequences, the act of overcoming one’s fears (by climbing) and doing it anyway is the best medicine one can have prescribed for the soul. This is precisely what makes the experience incompatible with a cage full of gawping spectators crossing overhead. (rep 496) The Trust has only resolved to consider the draft Amending Plan. The Act Comments by Wellington Trust chair, imply that tacit support already exists requires the Trust to consider the merits of representations on any within the Trust for amending the pinnacle zone. proposed amendments to the WPMP and make its final decision accordingly. The infrastructure recently put in place such as the hiking tracks facilitate low impact commercial activity such as climbing, abseiling, mountain biking and guided nature hikes. This is the direction the Trust should go in. (rep 488)

246, 486, 489, The Trust has failed to articulate the reason for the expansion of the Opposition noted. 490, 491, 492, Pinnacle Specific Area. There is no information provided as to why the The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to provide reasons for a 517, 521, 542 amendment is required, or the benefits it provides to the management of proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a (same rep as 486 the Pinnacle area and the Park in general. This makes it impossible to weigh particular proposed change does not invalidate the process set out in the

Appendices 77 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response with additional the potential benefits against any associated impacts, and thus any Act. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the issue raised) comment on the proposal can only be equally vague. draft Amending Plan based on the representations received.

In light of the above comment, one can only assume that the amendment The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The seeks to provide an expanded area for the cable-car concept. Yet the amendment will allow consideration of any development proposal which current Management Plan makes clear the Trust’s preference for major fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle visitor facilities to be located within the Springs Specific Area, with Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. No specific ‘complementary’ facilities and services to be provided within the Pinnacle development proposal has been submitted and therefore the impacts it Specific Area (see s 7.3.1, 7.4.2, 7.5.1(13), 7.5.3(1)). In particular, the plan might have on Park values cannot be assessed. notes: ‘The Springs is the favoured area for a visitor centre and for services facilitating longer visits, while the Pinnacle is favoured for facilities The WPMP encourages the provision of visitor facilities at the Springs but supporting sightseeing and shorter visits’ (s 7.5.3(1)). Given this approach, also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park seek to go to the existing extent of the Pinnacle Specific Area would provide for facilities the summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. that are complementary to the facilities envisaged for the Springs. (rep 246)

For the present amendment, no information is provided on possible impacts The draft Amending Plan would merely allow a range of developments to or otherwise. The draft Amending Plan potentially has impacts on the be considered in the area. Any proposed developments allowable in the visual, landscape, historical landscape, social, and general heritage values of area would need to comply with the standards for use and development in Mt Wellington and the Park - all of which the WPMT is charged with S2.6 of chapter 8B of the WPMP. These will determine what preserving. developments are approved and their location.

Is the Trust now committed to the criterion of developer demands to propose alterations to its own management plan, as opposed to proper procedures involving careful study and consideration of any values that may be compromised? Sets a very poor precedent.

Concerned also that the Wellington Park Management Trust will assess the representations itself for forwarding to the Tasmanian Planning The Tasmanian Planning Commission is provided with a copy of all Commission. It is hoped that the Planning Commission has sufficient submissions as well as this report by the Trust. resources in order to do justice to the detail of individual submissions. Further, without an accompanying impact assessment, we question whether the Commission will be provided with sufficient information to

78 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response decide such matters.

There are matters of procedural integrity on the part of the Wellington Park The WPMP provides strong protections for Park values and these are not Management Trust are at stake here. In these circumstances, how can the being changed in the draft Amending Plan. The Trust is following the people of Hobart and Tasmania continue to believe in the independence process for considering amendments to the WPMP set out in the and integrity of the Trust, or its ability to protect the cultural heritage of Wellington Park Act. This includes consideration of representations and a Wellington Park that it is charged with preserving? (rep 536) review of the process by the Tasmanian Planning Commission.

The expansion of the Pinnacle Specific Area does not appear to be in The basis for the current boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area is the accordance with the outcomes of the Landscape and Visual Character and ‘Wellington Park Landscape and Visual Character and Quality Assessment’ Quality Assessment commissioned by the Trust from Bruce Chetwynd and by Inspiring Place Pty Ltd and Bruce Chetwynd, Feb 2011. This identified Jerry de Gryse. This study formed the basis of the current eastern boundary the proposed amendment area as being within an area having ‘high scenic of the Pinnacle Specific Area, and I cannot see how extending the boundary quality’. Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the will minimise the potential adverse impact upon visual intrusion both ‘from Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual within and from outside of the Park’ (refer S2.6 (P5.1)). As noted above, Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per there has been no explanation or rationale provided for the proposed chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 - expansion, so it is unclear as to whether the Trust has taken the Assessment Building Design (a) Building Height. 013. In the absence of any specific into account when proposing the new boundary. (rep 246) development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual or other impacts cannot be made. Question why a statutory management plan that has had a comprehensive review less than 12 months ago, and which at that time made a number of Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to substantive changes to allow for more development and an improved amend the Management Plan at its discretion. assessment processes, needs to be changed now, particularly given that there have been no substantive changes since the management plan was prepared. (rep 486)

Based on the existing studies conducted for the Trust, the proposed Any development proposals for the Pinnacle Specific Area would need to boundary modification will potentially result in a significant impact on the comply with the standards for use and development in S2.6 of chapter 8B landscape, visual, scenic, aesthetic, social, historic values of Wellington Park of the WPMP. These will determine what developments are approved and if a cable car goes ahead and there is related construction in this area. In my their location. view, the impact on these values will be greater than if development were restricted to the un-amended Pinnacle Specific Area boundary, as the

Appendices 79 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response extended boundary encroaches onto essentially natural terrain and development located in the extended area will be more highly visible from Hobart.

The approach of the Trust in relation to this matter is extremely In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, it is disappointing, and irresponsible. Not only has the Trust failed to ascertain not possible to determine what impacts there might be on Park values. what the impacts will be on the values for which Wellington Park is reserved (even when a number of the values of the area have been elucidated through the Trust’s own studies), but it sets an extremely worrying precedent in relation to the amendment of management plans for the conservation estate more generally in Tasmania. Can any developer now approach any reserve manager and expect to have a management plan changed to meet their needs, without even having a development proposal?(rep 486)

Another reason for not supporting the proposed Pinnacle Specific Area Any proposed developments in the extended Pinnacle Specific Area that boundary modification is that while it is being proposed to meet the needs do not meet the Standards for Use and Development in the Pinnacle of a developer, there is every possibility that the proposed cable car Specific Area in chapter 8B would not be approved. development may not occur, and this would mean that this areas could then be potentially used for any other development that is allowed or discretionary under the Wellington Park Management Plan 2013 (as amended). It may be that there are other such developments that are not appropriate in the expanded, front of summit slope area. Again there is no evidence that other such potential developments and uses have been considered by the Trust before proposing the new boundary. (rep 542)

“The Trust also relies on a strong engagement with the community and other stakeholders for developing and implementing planning policy. The planning framework must be transparent and aim to involve the widest range of individuals and community groups, thus ensuring the community is both informed and involved in resolving the often complex management issues that arise within the Park. ", Wellington Park Management Plan 2013, Although providing reasons for a proposed amendment may help the

80 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response ii public understand why the Trust is making the proposal, this is not a The planning framework must be transparent. And there's the rub. The requirement of the Act and an absence of justification does not invalidate proposed rezoning is NOT transparent. Not only that, but it seems to betray the process set out in the Act. the work and effort that went into the plan in the first place. (rep 491) The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension The Trust’s evidently deliberate lack of reasons for the proposed change in to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the the Draft Amending Plan documentation, and also the reported refusal to WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the provide the Hobart City Council with reasons for the proposed change, draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then shows a lack of transparency and is reprehensible. produces a report on their assessment and submits the report and all of Should there be any proposed new use for the land in question, then the the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for its review. proposed new use needs to be evaluated properly first, before any change The final decision is not made until the Trust has considered the report in zoning is considered. (rep 492) from the Commission.

247 Oppose amendment. Change to the zoning will allow for a cable car by Opposition noted. stealth. The WPMP recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor services but does also allow for consideration of any development proposal which fits Opposed to commercial development at the Pinnacle. Commercial within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific development should be confined to the Springs Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. The WPMP also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park seek to go to the Improved access to the Pinnacle could be by contracted shuttle bus in busy summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. periods, which can carry bikes and can connect to other public transport A shuttle bus service is supported in the 2013 Management Plan. 250 Oppose a change in the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area Opposition noted management zone. As noted in the representation, no development proposal for a cable car, The natural dislodgement of a large boulder near the Organ Pipes recently and the various studies that would accompany it, has been received by the shows that the area may have geological instability. What are the Trust. Therefore the Trust is not able to assess what impacts it might have geological effects of excavation adjacent to the Organ Pipes for any on the stability of the Organ Pipes. proposed development? Has the Trust carried out any geological investigations or sought expert professional advice from Dr David Leaman or other geologists? Finally, the proposed amendment is putting the cart before the horse as the cableway proposal is at best in early planning stages. Where are the detailed EIS and other assessments?

Appendices 81 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 264, 283, 382, Oppose change in the boundary of the Pinnacle Specific Area. Opposition noted. (Reps 264 and 382 are identical in content but from different persons.) The boundary change is ad-hoc, inconsistent with the Park’s purposes. An This representation included 10 pages of comments and the key points amendment so soon after the comprehensive review of the Management have been summarised. The comments focused particularly on the extreme Plan is inappropriate. difficulty that exists in trying to asses if the amendment meets the various objectives, outcomes and standards of the management plan with no The various uses and developments allowed for in the Pinnacle Specific Area accompanying information and no rationale for the amendment. would also be accommodated in the area included in the boundary extension. The Trust must consider the intended and the unintended The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give consequences of this change and whether it is consistent with the the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension Management Plan. to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the plan. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the The boundary change is inconsistent with the Wellington Park Management draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then Plan 2013 and the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and should be produces a report on their assessment and submits the report and all of rejected or considered only when accompanied with additional information the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for its review. to determine the suitability and safety of the land area for community and The final decision is not made until the Trust has considered the report tourist use as is required under the Management Plan. Lack of information from the Commission. makes assessment against s2.5.2 Management Objectives, s3.2 zone Objectives, s3.3.2 Pinnacle Specific Area Objectives, chapter 5 – Maintaining The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development Park Values, chapter 7 Providing for Visitors and in particular s7.3.2 Facilities proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in Design and Siting, s8.2 Objectives for Managing Use and Development and the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. s8.3.1 Assessment Requirements impossible until detailed studies and This includes facilities associated with a cable car. No development information are provided. proposal for the Pinnacle Specific Area has been received, however any development proposal would need to meet the standards for use and The application to amend the Pinnacle Specific Area is essentially an development in Chapter 8B, S2.6 of the WPMP. These will determine what exercise in extending the ‘relevant standards’ against which use, developments are approved and their location. development and activities are to be assessed into an area where such use and development is currently prohibited.

If the developer cannot comply with the management plan than they should Should development occur in the future, the Trust has a responsibility to not be allowed to simply change the management plan. ensure it is in the best location to minimise impacts on Park values.

82 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Chapter 12, s.12.4 Policy and Actions (3) ‘Whenever any Park zone There are no geomorphic and land use features and/or water catchment boundaries are being considered for change, where possible define boundaries that the Trust considers would provide an appropriate zone boundaries that facilitate better management of the Park’s values, which boundary in the vicinity of the PSA. In fact, the existing PSA boundary is will generally accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, based on the location of existing developments rather than natural and/or water catchment boundaries.’ features. The proposed boundary extension is adjacent to existing The developer who has requested that the zone boundary be amended developments and in so far as it would allow future developments to be should provide a detailed examination and justification for how the located close to existing ones, the Trust believes it will help facilitate better proposed amendment ‘facilitates better management of the parks values’, management of Park values.

267, 284, 390, Oppose the amendment. Is contrary to s5 of the Wellington Park Act which Opposition noted. 464, 523, sets out the purposes for which the Park is reserved and s11 which sets out Section 5 of the Wellington Park Act describes the purposes for which the the functions and powers of the Trust – which must be exercised in a way Wellington Park is reserved. (a) of section 5 states’ for the provision of that is consistent with s5. The desire of the proponent(s) to put part of a recreational and tourism uses and opportunities consistent with the public facility - Mt Wellington Park - to private use is irrelevant to the purposes specified in paragraphs (b) to (e). The Trust already licences proper exercise by the Trust of any function or power in s11. The Trust has many commercial tourist operators to carry out their businesses in the erred and failed to apply the provision of section 5. (rep 267) Park. The terms of the licences ensure the protection of Park values in accordance with the guidelines in chapter 7 of the WPMP. In accordance with Section 11 and Section 5 of the Wellington Park Management Act 1993 and Section 27 (1) of the Land Use Planning and The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to provide reasons for a Approvals Act 1993, unless the Trust and or the proponent can demonstrate proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a that the amendment process meets condition precedents b,c,d and e; being particular proposed change does not invalidate the process set out in the the purpose for which Wellington Park is set aside than the amendment is Act. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the contrary to the legislation and the Wellington Park Management Trust must draft Amending Plan based on the representations received. The reject the proposal. standards for use and development in the various zones in the Park are designed to ensure that development proposals conform to the purposes Furthermore, in the absence of any justification for the amendment or for which the Park was reserved in section 5 of the Act. It would be up to a information relating to the condition precedent in Section 5 of the development proponent to demonstrate compliance. Wellington Park Act 1993, the Judicial Review Act 2000, requires, in the making of a decision, that such decisions are based upon evidence and The proposed amendment has been advertised by the Trust in order to material to justify making of the decision. In addition, under Section 6 of give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the the Act ‘If provision is made by an enactment for the making of a report or extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described recommendation before a decision is made, the making of the report or in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion

Appendices 83 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response recommendation is itself taken, for the purposes of this Act, to be the on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and making of a decision’. Of relevance, Section 21, Decisions without then produces a report on their assessment and submits the report and all justification – establishing ground provides for the grounds in determining of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for its whether a decision is justified. Section 17 (2)(b) also provides the grounds review. The final decision is not made until the Trust has considered the upon which a decision can be reviewed under the Judicial Review Act 2000. report from the Commission and relies upon the Trust’s report to the Commission on its consideration of representations received. In relation to the proposed amendment and if the Trust have proceeded to initiate the amendment in the absence of all of the information / The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development considerations required under Section 5 of the Wellington Park proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in Management Act 1993, S 17(2)(b) requires: the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. That procedures that were required by law to be observed relating to the These provide the mechanism the Trust uses to determine if a proposed making of the decision were not observed. development is in accord with section 5 of the Wellington Park Act 1993. Development proposals that can’t comply would not be approved. The Wellington Park Management Trust cannot simply amend the Pinnacle Zone Boundary in the absence of sufficient information, consideration and justification regarding S5 (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Wellington Park Act 1993.

Furthermore, The Trust will need to resolve as to who will pay the cost for Section 8.2 of the WPMP requires that proponents for private the collection of this information. To make a decision in the absence of the development bear any costs associated with the preparation of information required under the Act would constitute a decision that was documentation required for the assessment of use and development contrary to the purpose for which the Wellington Park was set aside and is proposals and, where relevant, the assessment of such proposals. not consistent with the procedures that are required by law to be observed. (rep 390)

No documentation is available to explain the rationale behind the amendment and for this alone it should be refused.

Also, Schedule 3 of the Wellington Park Act requires Disclosure of Interest The interests Trust members may have in any item being considered at a by Trust members. No evidence that this has been implemented at any of Trust meeting is disclosed at the start of the meeting and recorded in the the Trust meetings. This leaves the Trust open to unfitting speculation as to minutes. the probity of its Trustees and the public benefit of its decisions. (rep 464)

84 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

The seemingly ad hoc process, lacking in transparency, that has been undertaken in regard to the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Amendments to a management plan for Wellington Park are made in objectives of the Act and the question of whether the Board members and accordance with the procedures in the Wellington Park Management Act. officers of the Trust are meeting their legal requirements under LUPAA needs to be addressed. (rep 523)

273 and Object to the proposed amendment on the grounds that; Opposition noted 291(point 1 1. The Trust only very recently finalised the Management Plan, following The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to provide reasons for a only), 294, 295, extensive consultation and examination of zones thus there is no proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a 374, justification to now amend the Natural Zone. The current management particular proposed change does not invalidate the process set out in the plan had already extended the Pinnacle Specific Area from what was within Act. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the the 2005 Management Plan with a rather unconvincing rationale at section draft Amending Plan based on the representations received. 3.1.3. (rep 374) Section .7.2.1 ‘Balancing Competing Demands’ describes the multiple 2. The reference in section 7.2.1 of the Management Plan to the cable car activities and uses that occur in the Park and suggests that a debate. 7.2.1 says that a "comprehensive visitation strategy" would be comprehensive visitation strategy would assist the Trust in making useful to assist the Trust to resolve the issue and determine whether such a informed decisions (including about a cable car) regarding the types of proposal could be consistent with the park objectives. Without such a facilities that are desired and appropriate in the Park and where they are strategy, the Trust should not be facilitating the possibility of a cable car best located. The Trust is assessing what resources are required to development (which this amendment is explicitly designed to facilitate. prepare the visitation strategy.

3. Chapter 11 emphasizes the importance of an adaptive management The adaptive management approach actually relies on monitoring the approach to managing the Park. This approach relies on evidence, effects of management inputs in order to assess if they are achieving their monitoring and evaluation, suggesting that the Trust should have evidence goals and modifying those activities that are not achieving the desired to support any proposed changes. goals based on the knowledge gained though monitoring.

4. Page 226 of the management plan states: This is dealt with in the response to rep 264. 'Whenever any Park zone boundaries are being considered for change, where possible define boundaries that facilitate better management of the Park’s values, which will generally accord to recognisable geomorphic and land-use features, and/or water catchment boundaries'

Appendices 85 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response There appears to be little to no evidence that the proposed boundary amendment will "facilitate better management of the Park's values". In the absence of such information, the Trust must reject the current amendment.

5. There is virtually no documentation supporting or justifying the proposed The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give amendment. There is no indication how the amendment would further the the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension objectives of the RMPS, or the vision, principles and objectives of the to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the Wellington Park Management Plan. While a future development proposal WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act the Trust informs it opinion on the would considers these matters in detail, there should be a strategic draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then consideration of such matters within the amendment.(rep 374) produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for its review.

268, 270, 271 Section 8.2 of the Wellington Park Management Plan, Objectives for This representation does not state if it is for or against the proposed Assessing and Managing, Activities, Use and Development, states: amendment but only that the developer should pay for the assessment Ensuring that proponents for private development bear any costs associated process, on the basis of section 8.2 and his statement that the amendment with the preparation of documentation required for the assessment of use constitutes the development planning process. and development proposals and, where relevant, the assessment of such proposals.’ Section 8.2 of the WPMP requires that proponents for private The proponent of the amendment has personally described the boundary development bear any costs associated with the preparation of adjustment as constituting the ‘development planning process’ documentation required for the assessment of use and development proposals and, where relevant, the assessment of such proposals. Developer must pay for required studies (rep 268) However, no development proposal for the PSA has been received.

308 (remainder The opportunity here for Hobart is not a one-eyed cable car but is providing Opposition to a cable car noted. of rep similar to a spectacular vehicle ride to the top of the mountain. Hobart needs another Section 9.2.3 of the management plan – Potential Transport Modes, Rep 25 ) See rep way to enjoy the mountain through transport to the top that does not take acknowledges that alternative transport options to the Pinnacle should be 25 for comments away its wilderness values. Road users are exposed to high able to be considered and hence the move away from a prohibition on risk from traffic flow, buses, trucks, ice, snow, bikes, etc, and it can be commercial development at the Pinnacle, as commercial development is dangerous. A suitable route for a spectacular vehicle ride is surely a seen as necessary to supplement the viability of such transport. Chapter B, possibility. There are other options to consider that are less obtrusive than Table 3 relating to discretionary and permitted use and development a cable car with massive towers. One of many ideas is a rack and pinion rail allows for consideration of a use class termed ‘Transport Depot and

86 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response distribution. This includes a range of potential transport modes. 334 Object to such a large extension to the summit area being needed. The Opposition noted. existing viewing area is large and underutilised and could easily The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The accommodate a cafe/restaurant, with a new mezzanine area installed proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / "upstairs" as a viewing platform. Any cable car if ever there is enough traffic Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the volume to justify it should be required to arrive at the existing infrastructure ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as footprint at the summit. The cable car could come into a buried terminal described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. No under the existing observation building so it is hidden and integrated, specific development proposal has been submitted. minimising visual and vegetation impacts.

Must encourage any new development to be more innovative about how they build within the current developed envelope, which may include underground. If that makes the costs too high then it must be a questionable development, as it will presumably be there for the next 100 years, so defray the cost over the long lifetime of a high quality facility. In the Alps they burrow rack railways inside mountains, so they emerge for a See Rep 101, etc for comment on this issue. few small observation areas on the way up but are hidden and protected from high winds preventing operation, something that is very relevant for any cable car operation on Mt. Wellington.

Issue of existing public road being closed 336 A proposal to expand the Pinnacle Specific Area for the development of Opposition noted. Tourist operation facilities, Food Service facilities and/or park management This representation accurately describes the approval process that applies facilities only makes sense if the need for these facilities is insufficiently in the Park and the consequences of the proposed amendment in terms of addressed within the overall Management Plan, or if there is a specific, use and development as per Table 3 but have not been reproduced here, in undeclared development proposal under active consideration. At present the interests of brevity. the Springs Specific Area is zoned to allow these uses and offers ample This representation correctly points out the rationale for facilitating opportunity to develop commercial facilities. The land use conflicts at the development at the Springs, as described in the management plan – see Springs are much less significant than at the Pinnacle. It is easier to manage chapter 8A. the environmental consequences of any development at the Springs and extreme weather is less likely to impact on any attraction based there, than one based on the Pinnacle.

Appendices 87 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The WPMP recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor services but Until such time as the prospects for development at the Springs have also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park seek to go to outgrown the site it is difficult to see why a management body would act to the summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. Therefore encourage development at the summit, other than because there is an the Plan also allows for consideration of any development proposal which undeclared development interest. fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Appendix 3A of the Wellington Park Management Plan outlines the

development assessment process for obtaining permits under both the This representation makes suggestions as to a course of action that the Wellington Park Act and LUPAA. The flow chart shows that consent of the Trust could take suggesting that the proposed amendment be rejected and relevant land owner is necessary before the assessment process can begin. a minor change be made to the management plan to ‘specifically address The Management Plan is silent on how the Trust deals with a situation how zone boundary changes can be considered as part of the assessment where a developer does not have approval from the relevant land owner of development applications for major projects. The objective would be to (the Hobart City Council in this case) and where the mooted development ensure that developments are not precluded by existing zone boundaries if conflicts with the zone approved uses of the intended land use area. Based the arguments in favour of a development and zone boundary change are upon the current situation it would seem that the Trust deals with this assessed together to be positive. This would provide a transparent situation by aligning itself with the developer and seeking a zone change by planning process that would not require the Management Trust to ally stealth that will later facilitate approval if the zone change is granted. itself with an intended developer.’ I request that the Trust take the following actions with regard to this zoning Such an approach would allow for clarity and ensure the required application change: information is provided specific to any suggested amendment. Such a

combined amendment plus development application is common under the 1. Reject the zoning application. There are two grounds for this rejection. Land Use and Planning Approvals Act but legal advice would be required to First, there is no clear reason to make the change. Second, because there is determine if this is possible under the Wellington Park Act or what changes ample scope for tourist development at The Springs that is consistent with would be required to the Act to allow amendments to the management the current Management Plan. plan to occur in such a way.

2. Amend the Management Plan to specifically address how zone boundary changes can be considered as part of the assessment of development applications for major projects. The objective would be to ensure that developments are not precluded by existing zone boundaries if the arguments in favour of a development and zone boundary change are assessed together to be positive. This would provide a transparent planning process that would not require the Management Trust to ally itself with an

88 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response intended developer.

344 As a consultant geologist who has carefully examined the area of the Opposition noted. proposed amendment, my conclusions are: Should the amendment be supported by the Trust, any development 1. This area is a totally unsuitable area for development. Any foundation application within the amendment area would be required to submit an work would require blasting and rock removal, in dense hard solid dolerite, assessment of impact on geoheritage values, Chapter 8B, s2.6, Issue 2. and such blasting would be highly dangerous in such a steep area with so A2.3 and P2.3 as well as Issue 6: environmental hazards – (a) regolith and many loose boulders. Issue 5: landscape, visual quality and amenity.

2. Problems with large heavy dolerite boulders coming loose and rolling down the mountain have already been seen – there are undoubtedly more, and blasting around the Organ Pipes area could provide the trigger for them to move.

3. Just gaining access to a building site within the zone for machinery and materials, presumably by road, would be enormously difficult and highly destructive of the environment, considering the numerous boulders and outcrops which would have to be removed.

4. In addition to the physical difficulties and environmental damage involved in the actual construction, the impact on the visual amenity for visitors looking down from the Viewing Shelter and Lookouts would appear to be unacceptable. What is now a superb and uncluttered view of the city and river etc would be blighted by any sort of building or construction in the foreground. The suggestion of significant development within this zone of pristine rugged alpine landscape seems entirely wrong for practical, environmental, visual and philosophical reasons.

353, 360, (all Object. Opposition noted. other points in The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Wellington Park Act and The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development these with LUPAA. As required under Section 27 (1) of LUPPA. proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in representation “It is the duty of all owners or occupiers of land in Wellington Park to the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP.

Appendices 89 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response are the same as exercise their functions and powers and to use and manage the land in a Any such development proposal will have to meet all of the relevant those raised by manner that is consistent with the purposes for which it is set aside and with provisions and standards of the management plan. These will determine the ROCC any Management Plan.” what developments are approved and their location. petition see Rep The Trust is required to have regard to the impact that the boundary change 104, etc) will enable within an area where such use and development is currently prohibited with regard to environmental, economic, cultural and social terms. At present, the proposed amendment is being pursued in the absence of important information and the proposal comprises nothing more than a map and a ‘visual impact assessment’, a petition and some letters of support, provided by the proponent.

Section 7.2.1 of the management plan states that a ‘comprehensive See comment on Representation 273. visitation strategy’ would be useful to assist the Trust resolve the long running issue of the cable car. Without such a strategy the Trust should not be facilitating the possibility of a cable car development (rep 360)

363 "This vanishing world is beautiful beyond our dreams and contains in itself This representation does not actually state its position on the proposed rewards and gratifications never found in an artificial landscape or man- amendment but given the context of the representation is taken to be made objects." opposed to it. "Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform and largely artificial world." Let the vision of Olegas Truchanas be the guiding principle of this issue.

365 Opposed to the proposal to extend the Pinnacle Specific Area to the region Opposition noted. to the East of the current lookout shelter as this area is highly visible from The area of the proposed amendment is within an area shown in the Hobart and is steep land, not suitable for many of the uses outlined. Not WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an area of ‘high against a cable car but feel a route from Glenorchy would be more suitable, visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed to retain the aesthetic values of the Mountain. amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height.

90 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 381, 386, 397, The Trust has not provided any information regarding the reason for such Opposition noted. 401, 410, an amendment. Given that they are managing public land it is only The Wellington Park Act does not require the Trust to provide reasons for a 411,425, 478, appropriate that this be made explicit. proposed amendment to the WPMP and an absence of justification for a 485 particular proposed change does not invalidate the process set out in the In summary, the proposed amendments to the Wellington Park Act. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the Management Plan are unprecedented, run counter to the aims of the Plan, draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and sends a foster the possibilities of cronyism and political corruption, are in report on this to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review. A final themselves a corruption of process, would unacceptably diminish the decision is not made until the Trust has considered the report from the natural and cultural values of the Park and are without rationale. (rep 401) Commission.

Disagree with both the draft plan and the Trust’s consultation process and specifically by the Trust’s lack of transparency and failure to observe the principles of natural justice. It is impossible to comment on the merit of the proposed amendment in the absence of any information. Clearly the Trust has collected and evaluated evidence to have made a ‘threshold decision’ to proceed with the DAP. This must be documented and released for scrutiny. It is understood that the Trust is wary of taking a position or influencing stakeholders, however it could simply publish the available evidence without a recommendation and making it clear that the Trust is adopting a neutral position at this time. (rep 478)

This amendment process is also contrary to the Trust’s own Wellington Park Management Plan 2013: The planning framework must be transparent and aim to involve the widest range of individuals and community groups, thus ensuring the community is both informed and involved in resolving the often complex management issues that arise within the Park. (page ii) (rep 478)

The Trust has resolved to evaluate the proposed amendment through public Changes to the WPMP can only be made through the process set out in the process. This implies that the Trust didn’t perform any due diligence into Wellington Park Act 1993. This includes exhibition of the proposed the company performing the request and opens itself to a precedence to changes and consideration of representations. No development proposals evaluate any future proposals by public process. (rep 485) for the area covered by the draft Amending Plan have been received.

Appendices 91 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

There is no proven reason to change the boundary at the request of a If approved by the Trust, the proposed amendment will allow developer. The boundary proposal is larger than what the developer will consideration of any development proposal which fits within the require. There is no evidence that the proponent will actually submit a ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as development application, there is little reason to suggest that any described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any development proposal development in that area will comply with additional requirements in the in the Pinnacle Specific Area would need to meet the standards for use and Wellington Park Management Plan, and the proposed boundary change is development in Chapter 8B, S2.6 of the WPMP. These will determine what specific to a particular proposal and therefore is not of any benefit to any developments are approved and their location. future developer, should the Trust not support MWCC’s possible proposal. Until a proponent can demonstrate justified and proven reasons for an extension, with a development application at the ready, the Trust should shelve any boundary changes such as this. (rep 485) In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, There has been no information provided regarding flora, fauna, threatened conclusions as to possible impacts on Park values cannot be made. species, cultural heritage values, or visual impact. Given the ongoing Section 4.2 of the management plan recognises that future climate change impacts of climate change on Australia's limited alpine areas it seems impacts may put additional stresses on sensitive alpine vegetation. It inappropriate to be opening them up for alteration and possible states that increased bushfire risk is potentially the greatest threat. destruction. (reps 381, 410, )

388 Oppose the proposed amendment. Opposition noted. My belief is that Mt Wellington needs to first and foremost protect the Any development proposal within the existing or extended Pinnacle natural values that it possesses; this is not just that the area should be Specific Area would be assessed against all of the relevant guidelines, environmentally friendly but that the area should feel natural, to some policies and standards of the WPMP. Until an actual development extent be separate (while not being exclusive) to the surrounding suburban proposal is received, any impacts on Park values cannot be fully assessed. areas, providing an escape to the “wilderness” for the residents of Hobart. Developments that don’t comply with the standards for use and This means that any development of the Mt Wellington area would need to development in the Pinnacle Specific Area in S2.6 of chapter 8B of the have little or no change to the experience of a user of the area; it should be WPMP would be rejected. contained to the already developed areas of Mt Wellington.

For the perspective of visitors to the area, The Springs has the ability to present the historical aspect of Mt Wellington that the Pinnacle lacks by comparison. The Springs should be viewed as the gateway to The

92 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Mountain, giving the historical values of The Mountain to all visitors. Providing this background to the visitors of Mt Wellington before they reach the Pinnacle (but while they are in the Mt Wellington area) will provide visitors with an increased respect for the natural values of the Pinnacle area, as they are taken in context with the historical values. 392, 439, 443, The flora east of the road close to the Pinnacle belongs in most part to the Opposition noted. TASVEG community Eastern alpine heathland, one of 7 highland vegetation The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development communities recognised in Tasmania. Eastern alpine heathland also occurs proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in on parts of the Southern Ranges, Mt. Field National Park and the Central the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Plateau, and has a somewhat different expression on Ben Lomond. The Any such development proposal will have to meet all of the relevant community is not considered endangered but is highly valued for its provisions and standards of the management plan including an assessment contribution to our alpine landscapes and ecosystems. of the impacts on vegetation and other Park values.

The alpine area east of the road at the Pinnacle is particularly rich in iconic alpine species. A brief vegetation survey identified 35 main species – see attached plant list

Any major development in the proposed extension area would severely impact on this precious alpine vegetation, particularly in view of the extremely rocky and difficult nature of the site. Vegetation not actually destroyed by what would have to be substantial physical disturbances would be impacted by such things as changes to drainage, run off and siltation, alterations to topography and available shelter.

Visual impact in this rocky area would also be significant.

394 Against the proposed amendment. Opposition noted. To comply with s 12.4.3 suggest that the current Pinnacle Specific Area be This representation suggests reducing that extended area by approx restricted to the relatively flat summit area of Mt Wellington between 11,000 sq metres, leaving a significantly reduced area available for 1240m and 1270m. The northern part of the current Pinnacle Specific Area development and requiring any potential new development to be located covers the relatively steep part of the mountain between 1220m and very close to the Pinnacle Road. 1240m, another distinct geomorphic area. Suggest this should be removed Further restricting the area available of development in the Pinnacle

Appendices 93 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response from the Pinnacle Specific Area and returned to the ‘Natural Zone.’ A Specific Area could make it more difficult to find suitable locations for the suggested amended area is illustrated by a map. range of developments that are allowable in the Pinnacle Specific Area. 396 Object to amendment and likely cable car development due to excessive Opposition noted though comments on the cable car relate to areas traffic it will generate. The excessive speed and volume of tourist and outside Wellington Park. visitor traffic on Davey Street and Huon Road regularly poses a serious risk to locals accessing their properties, to the residents and staff of Jane Franklin Hall, and to cars turning in and out of adjacent streets. The construction of a cable car (or similar) operation in South Hobart will have a major impact on the safety of South Hobart residents as the ‘cable car’ traffic will access the proposed site via Macquarie Street, Cascade Road and the South Hobart Village shopping precincts. South Hobart will bear the brunt of any development that occurs on the mountain and at its base.

414, 415 (these Opposed to the proposed extension. Opposition noted. were identical) 1. Any built structures in the extension area will be highly visible from below The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within an the mountain, particularly from the east and south. Should not add to the area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an existing visual problem with further development. area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any 2, 3. Not possible to ‘hide’ a structure in the proposed extension area development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be without massive blasting and disturbance in a vulnerable area directly conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 above the Organ Pipes. Any blasting could destabilise the Organ Pipes. Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being 4. No potable water available for a major private development so would submitted, conclusions as to visual impact cannot be made. have to be piped or trucked up. A water pipe would be ugly on the surface and subject to damage and costly to bury. Other impacts of any development proposals for the Pinnacle Specific Area, including provision of services and impacts on geological and 5. Any major private development would require additional toilet facilities, geomorphological values, would be assessed against the standards for use which would mean extra trucks carrying sewage down the narrow Pinnacle and development in S2.6 of chapter 8B of the WPMP. These will Road or sewage being piped down the mountain. This is undesirable, if not determine what developments are approved and their location. unrealistic for the reasons outlined in Point 4.

416, I am concerned that this amendment to the Pinnacle Specific area would Opposition noted

94 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response allow infrastructure that is visible from Hobart. Not opposed to Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle development on the Pinnacle per se, but believe that tourist infrastructure Specific Area, any development proposal would require a Visual Impact should not be visible from Hobart and should not reduce the visual beauty Analysis to be conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, and wildness of the Organ Pipes. section s.2.6 Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building Height. 013.

418 Oppose the amendment to the Pinnacle Specific Zone. The proposed Opposition noted. change will facilitate further damage to the ancient and beautiful landscape Any development proposal in the proposed extension of the Pinnacle of the summit area of Mt Wellington. This is not acceptable. The Specific Area would have to meet all of the relevant provisions and Wellington Park Management Trust should be focussing on restoring the standards of the WPMP, including an assessment of the impacts on summit area by removing ugly infrastructure such as the WIN vegetation and other Park values. communications tower. Developments within the Pinnacle zone will have a detrimental impact on scenery, biodiversity and water management.

421 Object to the proposed amendment on the basis that it will facilitate a scale Opposition noted. This 15 page representation details many of the issues of development (and potentially a cable car) which represent a significant raised in other representations - see Reps 97, 104, 227 and 246. In addition safety, environmental, aesthetic, economic, cultural and social risk to it raises the issue of the tourism impact of any development on the Tasmanians. It compromises the values, the objectives and many specific Pinnacle. provisions of the management plan. Many of the points raised in this representation are relevant but can only Explicit within the Management Plan (Chapter 8b) is the desire to provide be fully addressed when a specific development proposal is received. economic development opportunities within the Pinnacle Area. However, it is submitted that commercial development on the Pinnacle and in particular The proposed amendment has been advertised by the Trust in order to the extended zone, is antithetical to the strategic future of tourism in give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the Tasmania and should be rejected. As it is there are over 70 businesses extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described operating on the mountain (transport, guiding etc) which are likely to be in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion impacted by inappropriate commercial developments in the PSA. on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the The Strategic Future of Tourism in Hobart is not linked to a “carnival” report and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning approach that is common to other cities that do not posses our natural commission for its review. The amendment, if approved, will allow assets (Mercury Editorial 11 August 2014). A cheap “carnival” approach consideration of any development proposal which fits within the derogates the attraction that is particular to Tasmania: an unspoilt and ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as

Appendices 95 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response quiet environment; magnificent scenery; exceptional clean and green described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any such development food; wine; culture, people and art based entertainment - and a change proposal will have to meet all of the relevant provisions and standards of of pace. Commercial development on the Pinnacle seeks to make a the management plan, including an assessment of traffic generated and cheap “Carnival” out of Mount Wellington that will derogate the value traffic impacts. of Tourism to Tasmania - socially and economically. It will also devalue the Wellington Park for all time.

In this way any large-scale commercial development in the PSA, such as a restaurant or cable car would actually be an economic threat to Hobartians and Tasmanians generally. It will also more deeply compromise the principles and values specified in the Mount Wellington Management Plan, specifically; S2.1.3 point three (italics) as follows:

S2.1.3 Facilitate environmentally and economically sustainable development at the Pinnacle in the following ways:

Recognise the special environmental status and fragile nature of the Pinnacle while providing for development and use that does not adversely impact upon the site’s natural, biological and physical processes.

Protect the scenic qualities of the area when viewed both from within and from outside Wellington Park and, except for existing or already approved communications facilities, minimise skyline intrusions when the area is viewed from municipalities surrounding Wellington Park.

Ensure that development does not create demands for public investment in physical infrastructure that imposes financial burdens on existing and future generations.

Provide opportunities for people of all ages, social and economic

96 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response groups to benefit from the use and development of the area.

It is submitted that any extension to the Pinnacle area will lead to development that is unsustainable in the context of a delicate alpine environment that is visible from the City. Large developments that attract significantly more visitors will compromise most or all of the above aesthetic and environmental values and produce an economic threat by compromising the intrinsic value of Tasmania’s environment and lifestyle. The Trust would be abrogating its responsibility under the Act and to its duty to implement the management plan by approving this amendment.

426, 456 At the request of one proponent a process has now been initiated to make Opposition noted. This 12 page submission contains many of the issues an additional change to the plan. This would appear to privilege the raised in previous representation – in particular see Reps, 101 etc and Reps interests of that party over those of other interested parties. Whilst we are 104 etc (ROCC. Change .org petition) and responses made to them. sure that the Trust does not intend to so privilege that party, that is the effect of the Trust initiating this process. To show procedural fairness of Many of the points raised are relevant but can only be fully addressed process the Trust would need to be able to show equal consideration to when a specific development proposal is received. The proposed other proposed changes to the existing Plan. amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for its review. The amendment, if approved, will allow consideration of any development proposal which fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any such development proposal will have to meet all of the relevant provisions and standards of the management plan including an assessment of traffic generated and traffic impacts. (rep 426)

Appendices 97 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The Trust determined to consider representations from anonymous persons Both of these representations raise the issue of procedural fairness and and persons using an alias. This introduces the danger of representations raised by anonymous persons and persons using an alias. misrepresentations and lack of transparency. ROCC are prepared to stand Rep 456 requests a stay of action until the Trust can set in place a process by our representation and discuss any and all details with the Trust. that guarantees the bona fides of individual representors. Whilst it is acknowledged that a representor can submit more than one representation and can use aliases, this in reality can occur on both sides of the debate and can occur with any form of open public consultation. The issue for the Trust is more one of relevance. It is considered to be more whether the specifics of the representation made has merit and is supported by the management plan or not, rather than who or how many persons have made a submission, on either side of the debate.

429 Object to the proposed amendment for a range of reasons including: Opposition noted. A development in the proposed new zone at the Pinnacle would undermine This representation raises a number of issues raised in previous both the existing businesses at Ferntree and any new development at the representations – see Rep 101. In addition this representation raises the Springs. Development at the Pinnacle would likely mean the proposal at the issue of development on the Pinnacle potentially compromising the Springs would not be viable. opportunity to establish the Springs as the principal visitor centre.

It would be a perverse outcome for a Pinnacle development to proceed at The WPMP recognises the Springs as the focal point for visitor services but the expense of one at the Springs, which is a better site for a range of does also allow for consideration of any development proposal which fits reasons – a more amenable climate, more days when a city view is visible, within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific and access to more bushwalks than the Pinnacle. The Springs development Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP 2013. SS7.3.1 states could also be an ideal place for some of the 70+ businesses that are ‘It is considered that the Springs remains the most appropriate location for currently operating on the mountain to be based. a visitor centre and should be the focal point for visitor services and facilities.’ I would like to see much stronger priority given by the WPMT to the However the WPMP also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the development of a new public Visitor Centre at the Springs, rather than all Park seek to go to the summit and that some improved facilities are the time that appears to be given to facilitating a new development at the needed there. Pinnacle.

433, 527 List the whole of the Park on the World Heritage register, as most of the This representation does not state if it is in favour or opposed to the Burra Charter principles apply. (rep 433) proposed amendment but the content suggests opposition.

98 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

Any change to the boundaries of management zones within the Park should Chapter 2, s2.3 defines the Park’s values and includes Statements of be guided by the overall management principles the Plan (as outlined in Significance. World Heritage listing is a lengthy and involved process and Chapter 2); and as far as these changes have the potential to impact on whilst the Park’s values are significant, the assessment process in relation landscape and cultural values, they must “adhere to the Burra Charter to World Heritage listing has not occurred. (Australia ICOMOS, 1999) and its associated guidelines.” (the Plan, p. 82). Article 2.4 of the Burra Charter states that “Places of cultural significance should be safeguarded and not put at risk or left in a vulnerable state.” Furthermore, Article 3.1 states that conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach of changing as much as necessary but as little as possible.” With this in mind, it is clear that the proposed extension to the Pinnacle Specific The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the Trust in order to give Area has a very significant potential to adversely impact on highly important the public an opportunity to comment on how they perceive the extension landscape and cultural values. (rep 527) to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the Extending the Pinnacle Specific Area as proposed carries an unnecessary risk draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then of de-valuing the Park for current and future generations, and as such, is not produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report supported by the overall aims and principles of the Wellington Park and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for Management Plan 2013. (rep 527) its review.

440 Oppose the proposed change to the boundary primarily as it will have a Opposition noted. significant impact on the nature of Mt Wellington which is a major asset for Any development proposal in the Park has to meet all of the relevant both Tasmanians and for visitors to Tasmania. provisions and standards of the WPMP including an assessment of the impacts on vegetation and other Park values.

441 The Pinnacle boundary amendment is necessary for any development to Support noted proceed at the pinnacle—cable car or otherwise. The boundary of the current Pinnacle Specific Area, as described in the One of the stated goal's of the Park Management Trust's new Management 2013 management plan, was influenced by the Landscape and Visual Plan is to allow for select development at the top of Mount Wellington Character and Quality Assessment study carried out in 2011, which within the Pinnacle Boundary Zone. The problem with this, however, is that delineated areas of high scenic quality. The extended area was chosen to stated goal is contradictory to the other policies within the Management allow for potential development to be away from the existing

Appendices 99 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Plan that forbid structures from imposing upon the natural skyline of Mount telecommunications towers and out of the high scenic quality mapped Wellington. area.

The reason for this contradiction is because the current Pinnacle Zone is too The proposed amendment area is below the skyline but is within the area concentrated at the Pinnacle causing any potential development to mapped as being of ‘high scenic quality.’ A development in this location necessarily break the Mount Wellington skyline. may have less of an impact on the skyline but In reality any assessment of visual impact can only be conducted and be accurate when survey accurate As envisioned, the Pinnacle Zone amendment would open up a and detailed plans for a development are provided. Visual impact is development area on Mount Wellington that represents best practices in influenced by a range of factors, not just the location of the building – alpine development. The zone would be near to the Pinnacle—thereby angle of view, height, bulk, types of materials used, colours of the material providing the best views possible—while not being at the Pinnacle proper— used, extent of screening vegetation, to name some of the obvious factors. thereby preventing any unwanted incursions into the skyline. 453 Oppose cable car as it would mean sacrificing the Organ Pipes – the most Opposition noted. visible part of the mountain. Lasting physical damage would be done. Also The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The the cable car gondolas holding up to 60 people are too big. If there MUST proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / be a cable car the gondolas should be smaller, the route should begin from Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the Glenorchy and should not go in front of the Organ Pipes ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered.

454 Opposed to the proposed amendment. Opposition noted. Even without the gross intruding infrastructure of a cable car, disturbing a The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The currently undisturbed area does not align with protecting the Park’s stated amendment will allow consideration of any development proposal which values? fits within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP. Any needed service and access corridor should be along the existing corridor ie the existing Pinnacle Road. The proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area is adjacent to existing developments in the area and would allow greater scope to cluster The ‘enhancement of an ethic of care for the Park within the community developments to avoid spreading impacts. consciousness’ - s2.6 Key Desired Outcomes, does not mean responding to calls for increased resource utilisation. This representation quoted sections from the draft management plan, thus the section references were incorrect as they changed in the final version ‘New facilities should be limited until there is a demonstrated community of the plan. However the actual statements as referenced are correct and

100 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response need and increased management resources to ensure ongoing surveillance are valid statements from the management plan. To avoid confusion, the and maintenance.’ S7.5.2 (9) corrected final version section references have been used here.

Improve what is already at the summit and limit the area to be degraded.

A trip to the mountain is a ‘whole of being’ experience not just a view from above.

455 Tas Water has no concerns for operations or for drinking water catchment Noted. values as a result of the proposed amendment.

458 Before any further development occurs on kunyani a full Aboriginal Noted. assessment should be undertaken which draws together all known existing The various Aboriginal communities have been notified regarding the information and fills in the gaps in relation to our knowledge of all proposed amendment and their comments sought. Aboriginal cultural heritage values and their future management and The management plan –s5.3.1 acknowledges the Trust’s limited knowledge protection. Future management of the Park should move towards a co- regarding Aboriginal use of the Park and its place in Aboriginal culture. The management structure with the Aboriginal community. Trust has instigated a project to build better long term engagement with the Aboriginal community.

459 Oppose the amendment Opposition noted. No information given to justify it. Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to The Trust instigates the amendment and then sits in judgement on it. This is amend the WPMP. The proposed amendment has been exhibited by the a ludicrous situation where a proposal is not evaluated by a body at arm’s Trust in order to give the public an opportunity to comment on how they length from the proposal perceive the extension to the Pinnacle Specific Area may impact on the values described in the WPMP. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs it opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on their assessment and decision and submits the report and all of the representations to the Tasmanian Planning commission for its review. 473 Opposed to amendment because Opposition noted. (a) as it is likely to allow for a building akin to but larger than the existing The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The observatory building to be constructed. Hobart’s record for allowing proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi /

Appendices 101 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response inappropriate buildings is notorious. Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered.

(b)Danger If the extension is to allow the likely construction of a large Fire management on the mountain, given its proximity to residential areas terminal building for a cable car then the risk to fire fighting planes from the is a very serious consideration in relation to any potential use or associated aerial cable, at times of major fire and low visibility will development in the Park. A fire management plan would be a requirement undoubtedly be a real hazard. (There has been six major fires associated for every development proposal but the actual level of risk and mitigation with Mt. Wellington in the past 100 years or so.) measures needed can only be assessed when a specific proposal is received.

474 Oppose the amendment because: Opposition noted. (a) is inconsistent with HCC’s preference for visitor facilities being located at The WPMP recognises The Springs as the focal point for visitor services but the Springs does also allow for consideration of any development proposal which fits (b) the Trust has not demonstrated how the proposed amendment furthers within the ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific the vision, principles and objectives of the management plan and the Area as described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP 2013. SS7.3.1 states purposes for which Wellington Park was set aside. ‘It is considered that the Springs remains the most appropriate location for a visitor centre and should be the focal point for visitor services and facilities.’ There is no proposal to change this, however the WPMP also recognises that the vast majority of visitors to the Park seek to go to the summit and that some improved facilities are needed there. Sections 23 and 24 of the Wellington Park Act, 1993, allows for the Trust to amend the Management Plan. The Trust has simply exhibited the proposed amendment to allow for representations to be made. As required in s 24A of the Act, the Trust informs its opinion on the draft Amending Plan based on the representations received and then produces a report on its assessment and submits its report and all the representations to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review. The final decision on the draft Amending Plan is not made until the Trust has considered the report from the Commission.

477 (also a Oppose the amendment. Opposition noted.

102 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response number of the Extending the Pinnacle Specific Area on Mt Wellington might not seem like (see response to rep104) same issues it would have much of an impact on the ecology of the area, but it’s just raised in ROCC another example of nibbling away at the natural landscape. It’s easy to say petition see rep that it’s only this little bit of land but natural areas are suffering a death 104 etc) by a thousand cuts, and more and more natural places are getting destroyed. We shouldn't be doing it here.

More development takes away from the whole experience of being on top of a mountain. If the development zone is expanded, any development becomes more and more visible from the city itself, taking away from the beauty of the mountain and making Hobart a less natural place. Instead of being our wild backyard, the mountain becomes just another suburb on the skyline.

The Wellington Park Management Trust should be minimising and reducing impacts on the summit not extending the development zone and increasing the negative visual and environmental impacts in this area. 494 Submitted by the Mount Wellington Cable Car (MWCC) company. Support noted. A new private enterprise in Tasmania is proposing to offer a choice of access This representation is submitted by the proponent of a cable car in and facilities for Mt Wellington. The eco-tourism development would be Wellington Park. It included a petition signed by 934 persons supporting a entirely funded by the private sector and no changes are sought to alter cable car on Mount Wellington, details from a survey conducted in 2013 current forms of access. This proposal would increase visitor demand to the and extracts from a preliminary architectural and a preliminary pinnacle and therefore includes an alternative, (not a replacement) form of engineering study. transport to the pinnacle to avoid expansion of car parking at the pinnacle and reduce traffic volume on Pinnacle Road. An aerial cableway has been The survey conducted in 2013 and based on 2219 respondents is publicly identified as the cleanest, safest and most reliable form of alternative available on the Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) website. transport which doesn't affect the existing road corridor. The proposal's route is yet to be determined however options exist in South Hobart, West As the petition was completed prior to the exhibition of the draft Hobart or Lenah Valley. Amending Plan it is not assumed that that all those who signed it would necessarily support the proposed amendment. Similarly, the survey A ‘local Opinions and Values’ Survey conducted in 2013 in relation to the conducted by the MWCC was not about the draft Amending Plan. It is ‘Pinnacle Centre’ concept shows majority support for the concept as assumed that person who signed the petition who have an interest in the

Appendices 103 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response follows: draft Amending Plan will have made a representation. Q1 Strongly Support cable car on Mt Wellington: Yes 69.5% Q2.Strongly Support a Pinnacle Centre on Mt W: Yes 67.6% The preliminary architectural and engineering assessments attached to the Other questions in the survey indicate that key considerations for people representation recommend that to minimise visual impact on the skyline regarding a proposed Pinnacle Centre are visual impact, the need for the and from the car park, and to reduce wind impacts, any buildings should road to stay open, construction impacts and having family friendly, all ability be located off the skyline and down on the eastern slope into the area access. proposed for inclusion in the PSA in the draft Amending Plan. These The preferred access point to a cable car is from South Hobart - 32.8%. The assessments represent advice given to the Mt Wellington Cableway preferred activity on the mountain is admiring the view and atmosphere – Company. As no development proposal for a cable car has been received 39.85 and bushwalking -25.8%. the Trust has not verified them. 46.3% indicated that they would use the cable car a few times a year, mostly with interstate or overseas friends. The proposed amendment is not specifically to allow for a cable car. The proposed amendment will increase the area at the summit of kunanyi / This submission also includes an extract from a preliminary architectural Mount Wellington where development proposals which fit within the study for the Pinnacle Centre: ‘discretionary’ or ‘permitted’ categories in the Pinnacle Specific Area as The goal is to find a combination of siting and building form which will described in Table 3, chapter 8 of the WPMP could be considered. ensure that the proposed buildings profile will not unduly breach the mountains silhouette from any key vantage point. The visibility of the pinnacle centre from key vantage points at the pinnacle is also a consideration. It is envisaged that a combination of judicious siting and site integrated architectural design will minimise the visibility of the pinnacle centre in this regard... A building form which hugs or even integrates into the existing ground plane, is liner and narrow, following existing contours and is fragmented in form so as to eliminate continuous lengths of straight or parallel geometry may be appropriate. A native vegetated and partly trafficable roof could dramatically reduce the buildings visual impact within views from the pinnacle.

This submission also includes an extract from a preliminary engineering study, which recommends that the building be located on the eastern face below the summit :

104 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response We strongly endorse constructing the building just below the existing observation shelter. Because of the experience we have gained from completing construction projects in similar locations, where buildings are exposed to extreme weather conditions at higher elevations, we believe this would be the most suitable location. This location has been identified as the preferred option as it would provide suitable construction access for the project. In addition, temporary hardstands for crane use could be located close to the existing disturbed area to reduce the impact on the environment. In excess of 70% of the wind on top of Mt Wellington comes from the westerly sector. It is consistently high strength and frequently gale force, which makes this location on the east less exposed and safer for construction activities as compared to building within the current zone. This position also provides greater distance from radiation omitted from the current transmission towers. Visual impact would be minimized not only during the construction period, but upon completion, where the building will sit below the skyline when viewed from the city. Taking into account these considerations, we strongly believe the Pinnacle Centre for the Mt Wellington Cable Car should be located below the existing observation shelter.

502, 531, 532, Should this amendment be approved and the zone be extended according Opposition noted. to the wishes of the potential developer; The area of the proposed amendment is below the skyline but is within an i) the earlier extension should be removed; and area shown in the WPMP, Map 4 – Visual Management Sensitivity to be an ii) the plan should state why the zone has been altered. area of ‘high visual management sensitivity.’ Should the area of the proposed amendment become part of the Pinnacle Specific Area, any As for the proposed amendment itself, against large buildings being placed development proposal would require a Visual Impact Analysis to be above the Organ Pipes. While it may be a good idea to avoid siting the conducted by a suitably qualified person, as per chapter 8B, section s.2.6 building on the skyline as viewed from town, it also would be plainly visible Standards for Use and Development, Issue 9 -Building Design (a) Building in the lower site. (rep 502) Height. 013. In the absence of any specific development proposal being submitted, conclusions as to visual or other impacts on Park values cannot

Appendices 105 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response The Mt Wellington backdrop to Hobart is dramatic and recognisable to be made. people around the world. It is unique and iconic. Development that alters the appearance of the mountain or is visible from Hobart city and/or the approach to the city from the river should not be allowed under any circumstances. (rep 534)

Also against a cable car route that runs directly up the face of the Organ Pipes. The view of the cliffs from the mountain road and from the track along the base of the cliffs would be badly affected by such a route. A cable car, if built, should deliver people to somewhere such as Big Bend, with subsequent transport to the top should they want it. (rep 502)

509 Based on the information provided in the document (from MWCC website) Opposition noted. and overlaying the plan provided on Google Earth, this proposal looks to There is no “Organ Pipes buffer” in the WPMP and any developments in roughly halve the development buffer distance between the top of the the proposed extension would still be at least 100 m from the nearest part Organ Pipes and the summit development. On the basis that the Organ of the Organ Pipes. Impacts on the Organ Pipes would be assessed for any Pipes buffer will be significantly impacted, would recommend that the proposed developments in the proposed extension in accordance with the amendment should not be approved. As a guiding principle, the Organ Pipes WPMP and any with an unacceptable risk of impact would be refused or cliff line is a unique place that should be protected from development. relocated.

512 Oppose the amendment Opposition noted. Don't believe the mountain needs developing to attract visitors and the rumoured facilities are designed not to complement the mountain but an attempt to create further visitor demand that will prop up the business case for a cable car. The attraction of Mount Wellington is in its wildness, development at the summit will only serve to insulate people from the experience they would claim to offer. 530, We note the Trust's Mission, "To preserve the natural, cultural, recreational, Opposition noted. tourism and drinking water qualities of Wellington Park for their own value The WPMP provides strong protections for Park values and these are not and for the safe enjoyment of all people. This will be achieved through being changed in the draft Amending Plan. These values are not unique to outstanding management, sympathetic development and a cooperative the proposed extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area and may also occur relationship with our communities." within the existing Pinnacle Specific Area. Any development proposal

106 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response within the existing or extended Pinnacle Specific Area would be assessed To approve the expansion of the development footprint on kunanyi, at the against all of the relevant guidelines, policies and standards of the WPMP. urging of a single, private developer pushing to build a cable car across the Until an actual development proposal is received, any impacts on Park mountain's face and develop on the summit, would not constitute values cannot be fully assessed. Developments that don’t comply with the outstanding management of the Wellington Park or lead to sympathetic standards for use and development in the Pinnacle Specific Area in S2.6 of development. chapter 8B of the WPMP would be rejected.

We are also concerned at the precedent that would be set if the Trust The process for amending the WPMP is set out in the Wellington Park Act changed the Management Plan and expanded the development boundary 1993. Only the Wellington Park Management Trust can initiate an at the request of a private development proponent. amendment to the WPMP. The process requires the Trust to ask for and consider the merits of representations on any proposed amendments and The Trust's Mission is clear that it manages the Wellington Park on behalf of make its decision accordingly. The process is reviewed by the Tasmanian all Tasmanians, to preserve its tangible and intrinsic values, for the Planning Commission and only comes into effect when approved by the enjoyment of all people and with deep respect for the mountain's cultural Governor. The Trust does not make its final decision until it has considered and spiritual owners. the report from the Commission.

The Trust will be aware that the palawa pakana people believe kunanyi to The Trust feels it has a responsibility to ensure that any future be a place of great spiritual significance and do not support either a cable developments in the Pinnacle Specific Area are in the best location to car or larger scale development on kunanyi. In making its decision on the minimise impacts on Park values. 'Pinnacle Specific Area', the Trust is obliged by its Mission and the Management Plan to respect these strongly held, at times publicly The management plan –s5.3.1 acknowledges the Trust’s limited knowledge expressed, views. (rep 530) regarding Aboriginal use of the Park and its place in Aboriginal culture. The Trust has instigated a project to build better long term engagement with the Aboriginal community.

533 Tasmania’s future economic prosperity lies in capitalizing on its strengths, ie Opposition noted. areas of boutique industries and tourism.... The representation raises a number of issues such as environmental impacts but primarily focuses on the issue as to whether a business case in Patronage shows that many visitors are aware that when they visit a broad tourism sense exists for expanding commercial development in the Tasmania, they are not just getting away from it all, but coming to Park and contends that there is not one and that instead the inherent somewhere completely different from their own environment. Due to naturalness of the Park is the very thing that draws visitors. The Tasmania’s outstanding landscape, both natural and man-made, and its representation makes some very pertinent comments that relate more to

Appendices 107 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response appeal to a broad range of the tourism market, any changes to popular the overall direction of the management plan in allowing for expanded tourist destinations needs careful consideration. With this in mind, the commercial development in the Park, than the specifics of this amendment. current proposal to rezone the area at the Pinnacle of kunanyi / Mount Wellington may look like a good idea at first glance, but upon closer scrutiny one can see that it is an idea that is not good public policy.

The Business Case Many thousands of people visit the Mt. Wellington Reserve every year. It is doubtful that there are many other cities, if any, that has a rugged mountain with clean air, snow, wildflowers and clean water so close to the built landscape. Mt. Wellington provides a stunning natural green backdrop to our vibrant, man-made city. The contrast of the natural and the man- made is one of the very reasons people are attracted to walk, run, drive, cycle and climb on the Mountain. In addition to easy road access, there are already shops where people can buy refreshments, such as the Tavern at Fern Tree. There are toilets at the Springs. There are enough amenities already in place that people can enjoy visiting the Mountain in comfort without detracting from the experience of nature that people go there to enjoy. It is doubtful that people would come to visit Hobart or Mt. Wellington for an experience, such as riding in a cable car, that they could have in any number of other cities in the world. Nor has the case been made as to why a restaurant, cable car or other infrastructure at the Pinnacle could ‘value add’ to what is by definition a priceless and unique experience. Many people visit the Mountain per year in its current state, but no evidence has been presented to suggest that people are not visiting the Mountain because of a lack of infrastructure. Why risk potentially degrading the experience that thousands of people seek out every year, namely, a natural reserve, for a potential benefit that will lessen the natural experience that people have come to enjoy in the first place? Do not believe that a business case has been made for why there should be re-zoning and possible development at the Pinnacle of Mt. Wellington, including a cable car or any other substantial project.

108 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response

Social License Tasmania has a history of adopting contentious and community divisive projects, such as Lake Pedder, the Franklin Dam, the Tamar Pulp Mill, Ralphs Bay Canal Estate etc. A project to build a cable car, shops, or a restaurant on Mount Wellington does not appear to have wide-spread community support. Without a cross-section of community support, any project on the Mountain risks creating on-going social division. Approval for contentious and costly infrastructure is therefore likely to cause significant social discord for little, if any, economic benefit to the state.

Environmental Aspects The current level of infrastructure on the Mountain reminds the visitor that they are in a natural park. The absence of something, that is – a of lack man- made structures, is itself a refreshing presence. An analogy is that we often do not realize how much noise is affecting us until we go somewhere quiet. With more and more people in Australia and around the world living in high-density urban environments, there are fewer quiet spaces such as Mt. Wellington Park. Having substantial and intrusive infrastructure such as a cable car or restaurant would render the Mountain as a prop for a visitor’s experience rather than the Mountain being the focus of the experience. If we are to believe the proponents of a cable car, the cable car will draw visitors to the Mountain. By definition then, it is not the Mountain that people would be going to, but the cable car. The Mountain is a necessary, yet secondary, element to the experience of riding on a cable car or eating at a pinnacle shop/restaurant. If the proponent of the cable car argues that people are going to the Mountain anyway, and that the cable car is a secondary consideration, then there is no need for a cable car or railway. People are already visiting the Mountain in substantial numbers without any adornment or rides. Rather than accept the tired old line that Tasmania needs to be seen to be

Appendices 109 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response ‘open for business’, The Wellington Park Management Trust and the Councils of Hobart and Glenorchy are well-placed to be strategic and clever in their approach to management and tourism opportunities for the Mountain. A cable car, funicular rail and restaurant are, with respect, just as inappropriate for somewhere still as ‘wild’ as Mt. Wellington Park. As one of the ‘Abels’, and a world-class rock climbing destination, the lack of man-made development on Mt. Wellington is the very aspect that, given proper and strategic marketing, can attract both low-impact, high-end tourism. Low-impact, high-end tourism, such as rock-climbing, bouldering, zip-lining, bushwalking, bird-watching, ecology tours etc appears to be perfect for Tasmania’s size and economy.

534 The Wellington Park management Trust (the Trust) has given no cogent Opposition noted. reason for such an extension.

The existing broadcast infrastructure on the Pinnacle will be superseded by Section 5.4.3 (2)Other Use – Policies/Actions highlights the intention of narrowcast technology, so will be removed, and the footprints remediated. removing telecommunications facilities if and when alternative means of Those sites may provide scope for low-key facilities that do not compromise telecommunication become available. There is no timeframe on this the mountain's intrinsic wildness. though.

This extension, and the extension approved in 2013, create the conditions for a future conflict over which no Government of whatever colour, will survive.

The road to the Pinnacle was built at a time of economic depression; by The road to the Pinnacle is recognised as the most important access to the hand and with hand tools. Its continuing maintenance should be a source of Park and will continue to be maintained as such. pride, and be properly funded: not to be considered a burdensome impost.

This present extension should be refused; and the previous extension to the North-East be also withdrawn, as to retrieve some credibility in the Trust's management of Wellington Park.

110 Appendices Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response 539 Support the proposed amendment. Support noted. The relevant authorities should apply an overarching principle that developments should be allowed where they can be shown to: > be sustainable - pursuant to the multiple priorities identified in the Wellington Park Management Plan - and consistent with a history of human activity on the mountain, > expand the means of accessing the mountain, including the Pinnacle and Springs, > support different recreational activities without favouring any particular activity, and > contribute to the future prosperity of Tasmanians.

Have concerns that personal and political agendas of individual aldermen Section 8.1 of the WPMP, identifies The Springs as being more conducive may be influencing its representations to the WPMT. to longer stays on the mountain while the Pinnacle attracts shorter stay Also concerned that HCC’s representations appear to be based on an visitors keen to enjoy the view. ‘Consequently The Springs is recognised as outdated policy which focuses on development at the Springs, which has providing greater opportunity for the delivery of interpretive and failed to eventuate despite various periods of stronger economic conditions recreational activities by the Trust.’ and favourable financing terms available to many developers.

548 Support the Mt Wellington Cable Car. I firmly believe that this project will Support noted. have a positive impact on Hobart's economy and improve the overall marketability of the city to international tourism. Furthermore, the Cable Car will open the mountain up to more visitors and activities such as mountain bike riding, walking and being more accessible to people with disability through not using the dangerous road to the pinnacle. The Cable Car would also be able to improve access during times when the road is closed allowing for better use of the natural attraction which over looks our beautiful city. 549 Supports proposed amendment to allow sensitive and appropriate Support noted. development, specifically to allow the possibility of a cable car terminal and associated infrastructure.

Appendices 111 Review of the Wellington Park Management Trust’s report and representations: draft Amending Plan for the Pinnacle Specific Area

Rep No. Issues Discussion and Response Pinnacle area far from pristine due to existing developments. Existing very basic facilities currently inadequate for visitors (no commercial activities, no staff to assist visitors, inadequate car parking at times). Cable car would be a major tourism asset, provide employment and enhance recreational opportunities.

A cable car would solve access and safety issues due to road closures and large vehicles.

Current cable car technology can deliver an outstanding visitor experience with minimal visual and environmental impact. The same public confidence complexities, the same engineering and environmental challenges and the same aesthetic demands have been overcome in other cable car projects.

550 Object to the proposed boundary change. Opposition noted. No justification or need for the change. Issues of compatibility with the WPMP can only be assessed when a Proposed change incompatible with WPMP, particularly minimising visual detailed proposal is being assessed. Any development proposals that can’t impacts, preference for a shuttle bus, and could not conform to the meet the standards for use and development in the WPMP would be requirement that external lighting is not visible from Hobart. rejected.

551 Opposed to the proposed boundary change due to visual impacts of Opposition noted. potential developments and possible impacts on the stability of the Organ The WPMP provides strong protections for Park values and these are not Pipes and surrounding rock areas as well as on alpine species. being changed in the draft Amending Plan. Any development proposal within the existing or extended PSA would be assessed against all of the relevant guidelines, policies and standards of the WPMP. Until an actual development proposal is received, any impacts on the Park values cannot be fully assessed. Developments that don’t comply with the standards for use and development in the PSA in S2.6 of chapter 8B of the WPMP would be rejected.

112 Appendices