Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 …...Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 Report...

Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012

Report to the Tasmanian Planning Commission on

Responses to Issues Raised in Representations

3 May 2013

1. Introduction

This report represents the Wellington Park Management Trust’s (the Trust) response to the issues raised

in representations received on the draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 (the Plan). The report is

forwarded to the Tasmanian Planning Commission for review, pursuant to s 24A of the Wellington Park

Act 1993 (the Act).

The report consists of an overview of general comments, and a Response Table containing a response to

issues raised in individual representations. However, given the overwhelming number of representations

addressing the issues of commercial development and the cable-car, these two issues are specifically

addressed in section 4 of this report, and the Response Table (section 5) refers back to this section.

2. Background

Wellington Park is over 18 250ha. At its longest points, the Park is approx 26km by 15km, and stretches

from the Greater Hobart area, north to Collinsvale and Lachlan, south to Mountain River and Judbury,

and west beyond Crabtree.

The Park consists of multiple land tenure, with land owned by the Crown, and the City Councils of Hobart

and Glenorchy.

The Act provides for the establishment of the Trust to provide a regional and co-operative approach to

the management of a complex and diverse natural system. Members of the Trust include representatives

from: Hobart City Council; Glenorchy City Council; Tourism Tasmania; Parks and Wildlife Service;

Southern Water; and Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. The Minister

responsible for the administration of the Act is Brian Wightman, Minister for Environment, Parks and

Heritage.

The Act requires the Trust to prepare a management plan for the Park. The Trust also prepares other

subsidiary planning policies, strategies and guidelines for implementation by the respective land

management agencies.

This draft Plan is the third such management plan, and follows a major review of the 2005 Management

Plan. The review was commenced in December 2010, and included:

o external expert reviews of the Trust’s planning framework and management structure by Parks

Forum (Australia’s leading park management body) and SGS Economics and Planning;

o consideration of submissions to the Trust’s Community Values survey carried out in 2010;

o a call for community submissions on how people value the Park in April 2011;

o the release of an Issues Discussion Paper in November 2011; and

o the release of a draft Management Plan for 9 weeks of public review and comment on 27 August

2012.

The Trust received 264 representations from community individuals and groups, and stakeholder

agencies in response to the release of the Plan. 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.

2

3. Overview of key themes identified within representations

As noted above, the Trust received 264 representations in response to the draft Plan. Of these, the

overwhelming majority relate to the issues of the location and extent of development within the Park,

and the potential for a cable-car, and are addressed in section four of this report.

A consistent theme identified in representations was whether the Plan accords with the reasons for

reserving the Park, as outlined in the Act. This is discussed in section 4.1.2 of this report, however it is

noted that the Trust has determined that the provision of visitor experiences and facilities is the key focus

of the Plan, in the context of maintaining and conserving the Park’s natural and cultural values.

A key theme related to the approval of activities, use and development (chapters 4, 4A & 4B). This is a

key aspect of the Plan, given the application of two pieces of controlling legislation: the Act and the Land

Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA). The Plan is structured to provide clarity between the two

approval processes however some complexity is inevitable, and reflects the complex and values-laden

nature of management of natural areas. While the consistent rejection of a cable-car concept was

evident in the representations, there was considerable support for maintaining the dual assessment

approach provided by the legislation, thus maintaining both the Trust’s role in approving use and

development (as the strategic management authority for the Park), and the public accessibility and

engagement that LUPAA provides.

The detail of the assessment procedures was raised within this theme. Some representations noted the

rigour of the performance standards, while others noted that they were, in effect, causing prohibitions by

default i.e. there is effectively no way to meet the necessary standard. The Trust believes that it has

achieved its aim of providing a performance-based approach to assessment of use and development, and

that the standards provide for a best practice methodology for testing development proposals and

ensuring the minimisation of adverse impact upon Park values.

As a result of the consultation process, the Trust will review the Park Activity Assessment (PAA) forms and

documentation contained in Appendix 3, to ensure that the process is effective and thorough, and relates

directly to the protected values of the Park. One such issue was the need for approval to carry out minor

and routine maintenance works to cultural heritage sites within the Park: this may require a subsequent

amendment to the Plan to allow minor and routine maintenance of heritage sites (as listed in accordance

with s 6.3.2.1 of the Plan) to be undertaken without the requirement of a PAA.

Another key theme relates to recreation access, with a key issue being the maintenance of current

prohibitions on access and facilities within the Restricted Areas, particularly in the Glenorchy

management area. The protection of drinking water catchment values is a key responsibility under the

Act, and the Plan provides for limitations on the extent and location of facilities and the ability of the

public to enter the areas. In response to the issue, the Trust proposes to amend the Plan to allow for

consideration of new recreation assets e.g. bike and walking tracks within the Drinking Water Catchment

Zone, provided they comply with the objectives of the zone and the relevant performance standards

contained in the Plan. Other recreation issues related to the potential increase in dog walking and horse

riding access, and the provision of more multiple-use opportunities for mountain bikers.

Conservation of the Park’s natural and cultural values were prominent themes, and relate strongly to the

reasons for reserving the Park under the Act. Representations noted particular concern over the Plan’s

provision for new use and development to be considered, particularly at the Pinnacle, and the potential

impact of this upon Park values. The Trust believes that the objectives of the management zones

established by the Plan and the performance standards contained within the relevant chapters will

provide adequate safeguard to ensure adverse impact is avoided or minimised when considering new

uses and developments. The Plan introduces new protections and management approaches to areas of

landscape and visual sensitivity, and, as with all of the natural and cultural values of the Park, seeks to

provide for the protection of these values while also allowing for the expansion of visitor opportunities

and experiences.

3

4. Commercial development and cable-car

This section provides a detailed response to two key issues raised in 226 of the representations: the

location and extent of development within the Park; and the potential for a cable-car. Many of the

concerns and responses are consistent between the two issues, however the Trust has addressed some

specific concerns relating to commercial development that do not reference a cable-car (section 4.2

below).

The ‘Discussion’ and ‘Proposed Response’ columns in the Response Table reference this section where

relevant. However a further specific response has been included in the table where a representation

raised additional or specific issues.

Quantitatively, of the 226 representations:

25 supported a cable-car1

201 opposed a cable-car

6 supported commercial development outside of the Springs

75 opposed commercial development outside of the Springs

76 supported commercial development at the Springs

4.1. Commercial development: cable-car

It is important to note that representations opposing a cable-car are in reality opposing the Plan

providing the potential for a cable-car, not a proposal in itself. This results in concerns relating to

potential adverse impact, as opposed to the impact being measurable through an actual design.

The Plan does not specifically advocate a cable-car (or similar transport modes), but rather provides

for proposals conceived by independent parties to be assessed in accordance with the procedures

contained in the Plan. The Plan notes that the Trust has previously endorsed a policy for developing a

Sustainable Transport System for access to Mount Wellington. This policy recommends the

continuation of access by private vehicles in association with a shuttle-bus service.

In reviewing the issue, the Trust has maintained its desire for the Plan to allow consideration of a

cable-car and associated development at the Pinnacle. Any proposal would be assessed in

accordance with the performance standards outlined in chapters 4, 4A & 4B of the Plan, and also

require the approval of the relevant land-owning agency.

4.1.1. Representations supporting a cable-car

Supporting comments may be summarised as: desire for improved access, particularly over winter

months; benefits to tourism, including both visitation to the Park and to Tasmania, through

improvement in facilities; opportunities for links to recreation e.g. 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

the transport.

A further common comment was the need for any developer to work closely with the Trust to ensure

any development is sensitively designed and located. This approach would be inevitable given any

proposals would be assessed under the Park Activity Assessment process, and would require an

operational licence from the Trust.

The Trust has reaffirmed its commitment to providing for a cable-car proposal to be assessed under

the Management Plan. All of the above comments provide support for maintaining this approach,

and do not necessitate any changes to the Plan.

1 One representation was in the form of a petition (90 signatures) supporting the removal of any prohibition on

commercial development at the Pinnacle, and specifically supporting a cable-car.

4

4.1.2. Representations opposing a cable-car

While the Trust acknowledges the potential validity of concerns raised about a cable-car, the Plan

merely provides for such a proposal to be submitted and assessed. Consequently many of the

comments received are speculative in that they address possible design and infrastructure issues that,

depending upon the proposal, may not be relevant and/or significant. The performance standards

contained in chapters 4, 4A & 4B provide for the detailed assessment of any proposal and address

many of the specific issues raised in the representations.

Below is a summary of the issues raised in the representations opposing a cable-car, along with the

Trust’s proposed response. A further specific response has been included in section 5 where relevant.

a) Incompatibility with objectives of the Plan and inconsistent with purposes of reservation of the

Park under the Act; inability to meet KDOs; conflict with Trust’s vision; incompatible with the

objectives of the Pinnacle Special Area Plan.

The Trust has prepared the Plan in accordance with its desire to promote opportunities for

services, facilities and activities to enhance the visitor experience. This is reflected in placing

visitation objectives at the head of all relevant listings within the Plan, complements the listing of

‘recreational and tourism uses and opportunities’ in s 5(a) of the Act, and accords with expert

advice that the Trust should be more active in its promotion and use of the Park.

The concern expressed in the representations is that the provision of such facilities and

opportunities is over-riding the protection and preservation of other values (as required by the

Act). Given however there is no actual development proposal for major development at the

Pinnacle to measure against the purposes of the Act or the objectives of the Plan, the Trust has

made a policy decision to allow potential development proposals for the Pinnacle to be

considered and assessed. In essence, the Trust’s policy is to allow the market to conceive

proposals for visitor services and facilities, and to then test these against the assessment

standards. While it is reasonable to assume that there would be some visual impact resulting

from infrastructure both at the Pinnacle and over the eastern face of the Mountain resulting

from a cable-car, this is impossible to realise at this point, or to determine how any impacts may

be minimised.

It is considered that the Plan is not in contravention of the Act, but rather that the

representations are responding to the perceived impact of a cable-car (or other large scale)

proposal.

Proposed response: no change.

b) Visual impacts of infrastructure, and impact upon natural beauty and landscape values;

protection of the Park’s intrinsic values; threats to flora (including introduction of Phytophthora

and weeds) and fauna.

Any impact on the Park’s natural and cultural values will be measured and managed through the

performance standards provided in chapters 4, 4A & 4B. This requires the submission of an

actual proposal to enable an understanding of the location and extent of infrastructure, and the

risk posed to Park values.

The Trust’s policy approach is to enable proposals to be submitted and assessed by the

performance standards.


5

c) The need to maintain public accessibility via Pinnacle Road; trip up Pinnacle Road is part of the

visitor experience, and road closures are part of the mystery; support for alternative option of

shuttle-buses.

The Trust has previously adopted a Sustainable Transport System policy which seeks to provide a

shuttle-bus service that complements ongoing access to Pinnacle road by private vehicles. This

policy is noted in the Plan, however the Plan itself does not prescribe that Pinnacle Road shall

remain open to private vehicles.

While the Trust acknowledges the experience of driving into the Park, the Trust’s view is that a

prescription to maintain ongoing private vehicle access to Pinnacle Road may limit the

investigation of alternative transport options which may be proposed by private enterprise. The

Trust will seek to implement its Sustainable Transport System, however does not agree that this

relies on the Plan prescribing ongoing private vehicle access.


d) Economic viability; financial burden on public and concern over public subsidies; privatisation of

Park; loss of ‘public experience‘ to private development; not ‘locals ticket price’; no demonstrated

community need and creates ‘commercial monopoly’ for ‘private profit’ in contradiction to

objectives of Pinnacle Specific Area Plan; the Trust has ‘caved in’ to pressure to allow commercial

development at Pinnacle; potential to be ‘white elephant’.

As there is no current proposal, the economic viability and the extent of any proposed public

subsidy is unknown. However the Plan requires that such information be submitted as part of

any assessment process:

4.5.1.4 All commercial development proposals for services, activities, and facilities will submit a

detailed business and financial plan showing at least a five year projection of operations, demonstrating

economic viability while according with this Management Plan

4.5.1.5 The extent of any financial, infrastructure, Trust or public agency services, or environmental

resource subsidy of a tourism or recreation proposal will be made explicit and public.

The Trust acknowledges concern over privatization of public assets, however seeks to provide a

balance that allows for the improvement and development of facilities and services funded

through private investment. The Trust can ensure that any development will incorporate public

access to essential facilities eg toilets, viewing platforms, through its control over the

commercial operational licence for any commercial proposal. As any development would be on

public land (owned by the Hobart City Council), the Plan (ss 4.5.8 & 4.5.9) notes that the Trust

will only provide a Letter of Authority for a proponent to lodge a development application

following evidence of the land owner’s consent. The land owner may choose to call for

expressions of interest to determine the appropriate design and operation of the proposal.

The Plan provides for the enhancement of visitor experiences and visitation, compatible with

Park values. A related objective to increasing the visitation experience is ‘providing economic

benefit to the community to the degree that is compatible with sustaining the values of the Park’

(s 8.4.1). Consequently the Plan provides for a return on any private investment in infrastructure

within the Park.

The Trust cannot comment on any proposed ticket prices given there is no proposal being

assessed.

The Trust does not agree that the public experience of the Park is otherwise lost, given public

access remains to the Park. Assessment of any loss of such experience will necessarily depend

upon an actual proposal, and may result in an increase in public benefit through improved

facilities. It is noted however that the Plan seeks to ‘limit new facilities until there is a

6

demonstrated community need and increased management resources to ensure ongoing

surveillance and maintenance’ (s 8.5.2.8).


e) Impact upon Fern Tree businesses and other commercial operators.

The extent of any impact from a cable-car proposal will depend upon the nature of the proposal.

The Plan enables consideration of a cable-car proposal, however does not require it. The Plan

notes the Trust’s preference for the development of long-stay visitor facilities at the Springs,

which would provide a centralised location for the delivery of commercial services, which may

benefit other commercial operators and seek to complement existing businesses at Fern Tree.


f) Weather conditions are unfavourable; benefits of exposure to natural elements; often poor

visibility unsafe on extreme days; bush fire risk; Fern Tree is a better location.

The Plan notes that, while receiving high visitation, the Pinnacle is better suited to development

of facilities ‘supporting sightseeing and shorter visits’ (s 8.5.3.1). This is particularly due to the

often inclement conditions at the Pinnacle and the reduced visibility due to cloud cover. Further,

the Plan notes a Key Desired Outcome of any facilities at the Pinnacle being complementary to

facilities provided at the Springs. This is seen as a better location than Fern Tree given it is within

the Park and central to many recreational and public assets and services.

Bush fires are a generic and real risk within the Park. Any proposal would be assessed in

accordance with the relevant performance standard for fire (and other environmental hazards).


g) Need to retain the ‘wild’ element of the Mountain and that the Mountain provides a ‘challenge’;

need to respect, not ‘conquer’.

The Trust seeks to provide a balance between provision of services and facilities and the

protection of the Park’s natural and cultural values. However the Trust has prepared the Plan in

accordance with its desire to promote opportunities for services, facilities and activities to

enhance the visitor experience. The Plan provides performance standards for the assessment of

any adverse impacts upon Park values as a result of development – while directly addressing

‘wildness’ the standards address associated issues including: flora and fauna conservation;

landscape and visual quality; building location and design; and noise.

It is considered that accessing the Mountain can remain a challenge, irrespective of commercial

proposals. The Trust seeks to provide equitable access for all visitors, and any cable-car proposal

will be considered in light of such access.


h) Change the feel of Hobart and impact upon sense of place values; impact upon character,

spiritual meaning and sacredness of the Mountain; experience of the Mountain’s solitude and

ambiance through ‘passive viewing’; the Mountain’s major role in personal development and

confidence; intrusion of city into the Park; importance to Indigenous community.

The Plan highlights the Park and Mountain’s role in determining a sense of place in Hobart. The

Statement of Significance notes it is an ‘iconic feature of the natural and cultural environment in

south eastern Tasmania’ (s 2.3), and that the Park is ‘part of the community’s ‘extended sense of

self’ (s 2.3.3). The Plan also notes social values associated with the Park (s 6.3.4).

While the performance standards used to assess development proposals do not directly address

‘sense of place’ or spiritual values, they do directly address associated issues such as landscape

7

and visual quality. Further, the Trust may reference other strategies and guidelines endorsed by

the Trust which may have relevance to social values eg sense of place.

The Plan notes the limited knowledge regarding the historic use and significance of the Park in

Aboriginal culture. However the Plan recommends building strong and ongoing relationship to

better understand how the community values the Park. The performance standards used to

assess any development proposal provide for the protection of Aboriginal sites, and the Trust

has identified the need to amend Table 5 (Issue 4), S1.6 (Issue 3) and S2.6 (Issue 3) to reference

relevant Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania standards and guidelines (see section 5, Proposed

Response 140.8).

Proposed response: Amend Table 5 (Issue 4), S1.6 (Issue 3) and S2.6 (Issue 3) to reference

relevant Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania standards and guidelines (see Proposed Response

140.8).

i) Pitched to tourist market; at odds with reasons visitors come to Tasmania; wilderness is major

tourism drawcard; no social benefit and status quo should prevail where there is; don’t need to

match similar operations in other countries.

The Plan merely allows the consideration of a cable-car proposal, and reflects the Trust’s intent

to enable proposals to be conceived by private enterprise. The Plan also notes the Trust’s desire

that long-stay visitor facilities and services are better provided at the Springs. Any proponent

shall need to consider the potential market for a cable-car, and its fit into Tasmania’s broader

tourism appeal.

Proposed Response: no change.

j) Impact upon recreation use; shift attention away from other areas and narrow visitor focus to

Pinnacle; potentially overloading the carrying capacity of Pinnacle.

The Plan highlights the Trust’s preference for major facilities to be located at the Springs, and for

any facilities at the Pinnacle to be complementary to the Springs. The Plan notes that, while

receiving high visitation, the Pinnacle is better suited to development of facilities ‘supporting

sightseeing and shorter visits’ (s 8.5.3.1). The Pinnacle receives high visitation and has suitable

‘hard stand’ areas, including car-parks, boardwalks and viewing platforms. These could be

further enhanced through a suitable visitor development that complements the natural and

cultural values of the area.


k) Assessment standards are insufficient to protect the Mountain; prefer prohibition to relying on

assessment criteria.

The assessment standards are provided in chapter 4 (Table 5), chapter 4A (Table S1.6) and

chapter 4B (Table S2.6), and are adapted from those provided by the State Government planning

template, and revised to ensure their application to the local environment of the Park.

The standards are performance based, and provide for proponents to either meet the relevant

Acceptable Solution or to demonstrate compliance with the relevant Performance Criteria. The

standards do not seek to prohibit proposals, but are designed to rigorously test any proposals

and ensure that development outcomes do not adversely affect Park values.

The nature of Performance Criteria is that they are subjective, and require value judgments as to

the adverse impact of use and development. The standards range across all relevant technical

issues, and provide a thorough test for new proposals.

8

It is noted that some representations have queried the content of some of the assessment

standards that are unrelated to a comment on a cable-car, and thus these have been addressed

in section 5.


l) Rubbish generation, waste water issues and noise; vandalism and trashing of the area.

Any proposal will be considered against the performance standards contained in the Plan, and

be appropriately conditioned to minimise any adverse impact upon the surrounding

environment and visitor amenity.

The Pinnacle currently receives acts of vandalism, and it is considered that development of

facilities will not increase the incidence of these events.


m) Water supply issues; potential impacts upon sub-surface water flows and drinking water

catchments.

Any proposal will be considered against the performance standards contained in the Plan, and

be appropriately conditioned to minimise any adverse impact upon the surrounding

environment. A proposal would require its own water collection and storage, and treatment,

infrastructure.


n) The Plan should not provide for a ‘development corridor’ to the Pinnacle; the corridor should be

clarified and/or be limited to existing tracks and trails.

The Plan provides that a ‘services and access corridor to the Springs Specific Area and the

Pinnacle Specific Area may be developed through the Recreation Zone’ (s 8.5.3.1). The intent of

the action is to allow for infrastructure associated with facilities and services eg pipelines, to be

located within the Recreation Zone. It also provides for low level access to maintain the

infrastructure, ideally along existing access tracks. The action is a continuation of an existing

action in the current management Plan in relation to services to the Springs.

While the action provides for a corridor to be established, any proposal will still require

assessment against the relevant performance standards in the Plan, and thus any adverse

impacts will be addressed. However it is considered that the intent of the action should be

clarified to ensure that the intent is not misinterpreted by proponents.

Proposed response: Create a new action (s 8.5.3.2) to address the services corridor. In the

action, clarify that: any corridor is to provide for services infrastructure associated with

approved developments at the Springs and/or Pinnacle; access is to be limited to essential

maintenance only, and use existing tracks where appropriate; all infrastructure is to be

placed below ground where possible; and any proposed corridor will be required to meet the

relevant performance standards contained in chapters 4, 4A and 4B.

o) Carbon footprint of cable-car is larger.

Given there is no current proposal, the Trust is unable to make any assessments as to carbon

footprint.


9

p) Lack of Hobart City Council support for cable-car; unnecessary to develop the Pinnacle if the

Springs is developed.

The Trust notes the Council’s current policy position of supporting development of the Springs as

a priority, before considering further development at the Pinnacle. The Trust proposes to

include this position within the text of the Plan.

The Plan notes the Trust’s view that the Springs provides the best opportunities for a visitor

centre and should be the focal point for visitor services and facilities. The Plan also notes the

desire to provide facilities at the Pinnacle that are complementary to those developed at the

Springs, and based upon sightseeing and shorter visits.

Proposed Response: Amend s 8.3 to reference Council’s policy position regarding the Springs

as being the priority for development of visitor facilities.

4.2. Commercial development: general

As noted above, some representations provided comment on the extent and/or nature of commercial

development, irrespective of a proposal for a cable-car. These comments are addressed below.

In general, the Plan provides for commercial development and facilities to be considered in both the

Springs and Pinnacle Special Areas; this is a change from the previous Plan which limited such facilities

to the Springs. Commercial visitor accommodation however remains limited to the Springs.

The Plan states the Trust’s preference for large-scale visitor facilities, incorporating facilities that

encourage longer stays, to be located at the Springs, given its better local climate, accessibility and

positioning adjacent to key recreation assets. The Plan notes that, while receiving high visitation, the

Pinnacle is better suited to development of facilities ‘supporting sightseeing and shorter visits’ (s

8.5.3.1). This is particularly due to the often inclement conditions at the Pinnacle and the reduced

visibility due to cloud cover. Further, the Plan notes a Key Desired Outcome of any facilities at the

Pinnacle being complementary to facilities provided at the Springs.

Many representations noted the need for developers of approved proposals to lodge an

environmental bond to ensure rehabilitation of disturbed and/or developed sites. This is a standard

condition for large-scale developments, and would be addressed under any permit obtained from the

relevant Planning Authority.

4.2.1. Representations supporting development in areas additional to the Springs

Many of the comments supporting development beyond the Springs are addressed above, given all of

the comments relate to development of the Pinnacle, and usually to a cable-car.

General comments supporting commercial development include: the desire to improve facilities and

amenity to enhance the overall experience and management of the area; and the possibility to

address management issues eg vandalism. These comments are in accordance with the Plan, and

require no change to the Plan.

Several representations stated that the pinnacle is the preferred location for major development and

that the any such development at the Springs would be ‘half-baked’. As noted above, the Trust’s

preference is for large-scale visitor facilities to be located at the Springs, given its better local climate,

accessibility and positioning adjacent to key recreation assets. This approach is supported by the

Hobart City Council, the owner of the land containing the Springs and Pinnacle areas.

Some representations noted support for further development subject to the close involvement and

input of the Trust. It is considered that any development within the Park is subject to the Trust’s

influence, particularly in terms of the provision of public services.

Several representations noted support for private investment over public spending, and the

associated need for the Trust to generate revenue from leases and licences for commercial activities.

10

The Plan does not preclude private investment, and specifically provides for such investment to be

considered (s 4.5.1.4). The Plan also notes the need to ensure that development does not create

demands for public investment that may impose a financial burden on existing and future generations

(s S1.1.3). The Trust can generate revenue from leases and licences as provided by the Act.

One representation suggested a number of potential developments within the Park, including:

restaurant; ice skating rink; recreation tracks; hang-gliding; and rock climbing. The Plan fulfils the

Trust’s intent to ensure such proposals may be considered and assessed in accordance with the

relevant performance standards.

Given the Plan provides for the consideration of commercial development at the Pinnacle, it is

considered that no change is required in response to the issues raised in the representations.

4.2.2. Representations supporting the limitation of commercial development to the Springs

As noted above, a large number of representations specifically noted the desire for commercial

development to be limited to the Springs. The majority of these representations also stated

opposition to the cable-car.

Representations supported the Springs as the location for commercial development on the basis of its

better access and positioning near walking and biking tracks, and its limited visual impact. This is

supported by the Trust’s view that the Springs is the preferred location for visitor facilities. However

the Trust also seeks to provide potential for development at the Pinnacle, subject to assessment

under the relevant performance standards.

Related to support for the Springs was opposition to development of the Pinnacle, based upon: any

development being financially tenuous; management of litter and waste management; power supply;

and incompatibility with area and inconsistency with over-arching management objectives (ss S2.1.2–

2.1.4). The Plan provides for development proposals to be considered, and the Trust does not seek to

prescribe limits on potential proposals beyond the performance standards. The objectives for the

Pinnacle Special Area are aspirational, and tie in the with the performance standards to ensure the

minimisation of any adverse impact upon natural and cultural values.

Given the Plan provides for the consideration of commercial development at the Springs, and states

the preference for long-stay visitor services and facilities to be located at the Springs, it is considered

that no change is required in response to the issues raised in the representations.

4.2.3. Representations opposing any commercial development in the Park

A number of representations opposed the Plan providing for any commercial development within the

Park. Responses to comments raised are provided directly to each representation in section 5. In

general, the Trust believes that development of visitor services and facilities can be enhanced by the

inclusion of commercial services, including a restaurants and cafe, and can provide a legitimate source

of revenue to assist in management of the Park.

Some representations expressed concern at the potential for visitors (particularly those driving

vehicles) to purchase alcohol, given the winding nature of Pinnacle Road. It is considered that this

issue is adequately addressed by road and liquor licensing laws.

Given the Trust’s policy position on enabling consideration of commercial development, it is

considered that no change is required to the Plan.

11

5. Response Table

This table provides a summary and discussion of issues raised by each of the 264 representations, and the Trust’s proposed response. Given the overwhelming

number of representations addressing the issues of commercial development and the cable-car, these two issues are specifically addressed in section 4 of this report.

No. Relevant Chapters

Issues Discussion Proposed Response

1 4A, 4B, 8 1.1 Supports commercial development and alternative transport options in both Springs and Pinnacle areas, subject to proper process and viability.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan provides for consideration of alternative transport options.

No change.

2 4A, 4B 2.1 Would welcome more development, including a cable-car.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan provides for consideration of a cable-car.

No change.

9 2.2 It should be achievable to have the road open 365 days per year.

The Trust and Council have considered various options for snow/ice clearance within the limitations of the Mountain’s environment and available resources, with the current approach being determined to be suitable.

No change.

3 4A, 4B 3.1 The Mountain’s character shapes Hobart and the Trust should maintain its strong stance on limited commercial development, with refreshments at the Springs.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust’s preference is for major development to be situated at the Springs.

No change.

9 3.2 Focus should be on road-widening and clearance of snow.

Road widening is technically difficult and expensive, and snow clearance capability is within the limitations of the Mountain’s environment and available resources, with the current approach being determined to be suitable.

No change.

12



4 4B, 6 4.1 Food outlet at Pinnacle undesirable: litter; increased road use; and compromising ‘wild feel’.

Proliferation of litter is a valid concern, however enclosed facilities would minimise this.

No change.

4.2 Existing towers/shelter are unsightly and Plan should note the long-term need to remove these facilities. The Mountain has spiritual and landscape value, and should not be degraded by infrastructure.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1). The long-term layout of the Pinnacle is not specifically addressed in the Plan, given the potential for commercial development to guide this process.

No change.

8 4.3 Visitor facilities should be provided but the Park should not be promoted. Existing facilities are exceptionally good.

Some facilities are excellent eg recreation tracks, however others are inadequate eg Springs. Promotion of the Park contributes to the broader tourism objectives of Tasmania, and the intent of the Trust is to improve the visitor experience within the Park.

No change.

5 7, 9 5.1 Monitoring of dog-walking compliance should occur, including outside of normal hours.

The Plan recommends continuance of a co-ordinated approach to regulatory control (s 13.5.2.3).

No change.

6 4A, 4B 6.1 Do not develop Park for private interests. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

9 6.2 Road access should be improved. The Trust and Council have considered various options for snow/ice clearance within the limitations of the Mountain’s environment and available resources, with the current approach being determined to be suitable.

No change.

7 4, 4A, 4B 7.1 Any development should be innovative eg Mona, and depart from a visitor centre at the Springs, leaving the Pinnacle as natural as possible.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports major development at the Springs.

No change.

8 8 8.1 Considers there should be more interactive interpretation (rather than a visitor centre), more toilets and that the Plan should focus on encouraging greater visitation.

The Trust’s Interpretation Strategy notes the intention for digital (and other remote forms of) interpretation, however there remains a role for personal interaction and information delivery via a visitor centre. Toilets are permitted in all management zones, subject to conditions. The Plan has a strong focus on increasing visitation by all users.

No change.

13



8 Cont’d

9 8.2 The Plan is too restrictive in relation to off-lead dog walking.

The Plan provides for no off-lead dog walking areas. The issue was considered as part of the review however such areas would have an adverse impact upon the natural values of the Park, and would require fencing and management supervision. Off-lead areas are available in Knocklofty Reserve.

No change.

8.3 Lenah Valley area needs better mountain-bike access, and there should be more single-use bike tracks.

The Trust has endorsed the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan, which recommends investigation of improved bike access from Lenah Valley, and associated new bike tracks. Whether such tracks will be single or multi-use will depend upon location and riding style.

No change.

8.4 Pinnacle Road should be better signed and surfaced for cycling.

It is noted that there is increasing use of Pinnacle Road by recreation cyclists, and that improved signs and surfacing would enhance this activity.

Include new action in s 9.5.2 to note the need to manage Pinnacle Road in recognition of its use by recreation cyclists.

8.5 Walking access should be encouraged eg ‘car-free days’.

Agreed that walking use and access should be promoted, through marketed events.

Include new action in s 9.5.1 to consider events aimed at promoting greater walking use of the Park.

11 8.6 Enlarging the Park may result in more cost for management.

The land areas require management by the respective land owners, irrespective of whether they are in the Park. Further consideration of actual boundary changes will be undertaken following finalisation of the Plan.

Amend ss 11.2 & 11.4.5 to reflect need for further consideration of actual boundary changes following finalisation of the Plan.

13 8.7 The Trust should consider employ more people and seek cost recovery from events and investment in infrastructure.

The Trust seeks to work within its resources. Some revenue is obtained from events and use of infrastructure, as provided under the Act. It is acknowledged that substantial benefit could be obtained from a commercial development within the Park, as envisaged at the Springs.

No change.

14



9 9 9.1 The Plan should recognise the need for downhill, single-use mountain-bike tracks with vehicle access.

The Plan recognises the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan, and the Trust has endorsed the recommendations of that plan, including the investigation of a single-use downhill track from Pinnacle Road. The retention of such actions in planning strategies ensures flexibility.

No change.

10 4B, 9 10.1 Opposed to cable car, however supports development at Springs and other areas away from the Mountain.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports major development at the Springs.

No change.

11 9 11.1 Opposed to closure of Pinnacle Road and a cable-car. Notes that shuttle-buses may help but do not form a good solution and would require car parking at Springs.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy.

No change.

12 12.1 No issues: supports draft Plan. Noted. No change.

13 4A, 4B, 5, 9

13.1 Notes the presence and potential for spread of Orange Hawkweed and Heather, and that the Plan should reference both species.

Agreed that the Plan should reference the invasive threat of both species in ss 5.3.1 & 6.2.4. The Trust requires agencies and contractors to adhere to the Wellington Park Hygiene Protocol, and this is referenced in s 6.4.2 (Site Rehabilitation) of the Plan (including Keeping It Clean (DPIPWE)), however could also be referenced in Introduced Species (s 6.2.4).

Amend ss 5.3.1 & 6.2.4 to reference Orange Hawkweed and Heather. Include new action relating to adherence to Hygiene Protocol (similar to s 6.4.2.7) in s 6.2.4.

15



13 Cont’d

4A, 4B, 5, 9

13.2 Suggests the Plan needs to address the control of spread of the species during development at Springs and Pinnacle, and in general recreational access.

The Plan generally does not provide direct on-ground management advice, however, given the threat of Orange Hawkweed and known location in the Springs, it is agreed that the Plan could require particular management care in that area. The inclusion of weed management actions is not appropriate for the assessment standards in chapters 4A–4B (such controls may be placed as conditions on any development approval) however the minimisation of the spread of the weeds could be included in the development aspirations in ss S1.1.3 (Springs) & S2.1.3 (Pinnacle). Noted that the Plan currently has an action relating to the potential of spread of invasive species in s 9.5.1.11.

Include new action in s 6.2.4 to require control of Orange Hawkweed in the Springs area. Amend ss S1.1.3 & S2.1.3 to reflect the need to minimise weed spread in these areas.

14 4 14.1 General support for values-based management and limiting commercial development.

The Plan seeks to protect and maintain all of the values in the Park, and provides opportunities for commercial development within the natural and cultural constraints of the Park.

No change.

15 4B 15.1 Commercial development (tourist operation, and food service) should not be permitted at the Pinnacle due to: incompatibility with area and inconsistency with over-arching management objectives (ss S2.1.2–2.1.4).

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports development at the pinnacle of short-stay facilities, complementary to facilities provided at the Springs.

No change.

15.2 Helipads should be specifically prohibited in Pinnacle Specific Area.

The Plan relies on a performance-based approach to use and development, with few out-right prohibitions. Consequently, a proposal for a helipad may be received and assessed against the relevant standards.

No change.

15.3 The Plan should place limit on car parking extension in the Pinnacle Specific Area.

While the Plan does not prescribe the limits of hard-stand areas (including car parking), the performance standards contained in chapter 4B will ensure that any adverse impacts upon Park values are avoided or minimised.

No change.

16



15 Cont’d

4B 15.4 The performance criteria (P7.7, P11.1) should be tied to standards in relevant legislation under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1993 (EMPCA).

EMPCA contains only nuisance provisions, and there are no standards under EMPCA relating to sewerage disposal or noise minimisation. The performance criteria provides for the opportunity for proponents to demonstrate compliance with the Plan, and any further nuisances will be dealt with on a situational basis.

No change.

15.5 The Acceptable Solution (A11.1) of 50dB(a) is too high for a sensitive environment.

The level is considered to be an acceptable standard for natural areas. Any further nuisances will be dealt with on a situational basis.

No change.

15.6 The Plan does not consider the impact of future energy requirements of existing and future developments. Any future development should be limited to mains electricity to reduce visual intrusion.

The Plan provides for proponents of developments to consider optimal ways of meeting the Plan’s development criteria. All associated power infrastructure would be assessed for visual and other impacts in accordance with the performance standards in chapter 4B.

No change.

15.7 The existing observation shelter should be reduced or moved.

The shelter at the Pinnacle is proposed to be upgraded by Hobart City Council, increasing its useful life. The Plan does not provide for a new master plan for the Pinnacle area, and thus future development relies upon proposals being submitted by developers.

No change.

5 15.8 The Plan should address the presence and mitigation of greenhouse emissions.

The Plan addresses the potential threat of climate change on Park values, and thus broadly encompasses greenhouse emissions. The Plan recommends the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which itself has a goal of reducing greenhouse emissions relating to vehicle emissions. Apart from vehicles, there are few emissions resulting from management of the Park.

No change.

6 15.9 Litter should be addressed as a specific issue in the Plan.

While the issue of littering and litter management is recognised, it is an on-ground management issue and unnecessary to directly cover this in the Plan.

No change.

17



15 Cont’d

9 15.10 The Plan should advance options for sustainable transport, including options that require limited commercial development.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, including light infrastructure that supports a shuttle-bus system.

No change.

16 2 16.1 Supports management principles. Notes that Geodiversity could be expanded to include significant geological features.

Noted and agreed. Include suggested references to geological features in s 2.3.

4 16.2 The Plan should note the requirement for an environmental bond for developments.

Refer discussion in section 4. This would be a standard requirement of any development permit.

No change.

16.3 Notes the importance of the rigorous process for assessing commercial development, including the demonstration of financial viability.

Noted. No change.

4A 16.4 There is no Performance Criterion for water supply in S1.6 (A6.4).

This is a drafting error: the Performance Criteria for A6.4, and Acceptable Solution for P6.5 have been omitted in chapter 4A.

Insert Performance Criteria for A6.4 and Acceptable Solution for P6.5.

4B 16.5 The Performance Criteria for water supply in S2.6 (P6.4) should be the Acceptable Solution.

The Acceptable Solution provides for easy assessment of proposals that do not require any water supply. The Performance Criteria provides the opportunity for the proponent to demonstrate compliance with the appropriate standard or bushfire management plan, and is subjective.

No change.

5 16.6 The Plan needs to reference rock fall and debris flow in s 5.4.

Noted and agreed. Include reference to rock falls and debris flows in s 5.4.

16.7 The Plan needs to enforce permitted use of recreation tracks.

The reference to multiple-use of tracks is merely stating the fact that some tracks are multiple-use, not that they are used illegally

No change.

18



16 Cont’d

6 16.8 Any Aboriginal co-naming should include ‘Wellington Park’.

Noted. The Plan references the dual naming of the broader Park (s 6.3.1.3). Any investigation of dual naming would be in accordance with the State Government’s Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy (released (March 2013). The Plan also provides for long-term engagement with the Aboriginal community.

Amend s 6.3.1 to reference the Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy.

Amend s 6.3.1.3 to include investigation of dual naming of Mount Wellington in the first instance, followed by consideration of dual naming of Wellington Park.

8 16.9 Supports Springs as a location for a visitor centre, and the Pinnacle as a short-stay area.

Noted – this is the intent of the Plan. No change.

16.10 Supports replacement of cairns on walking tracks with snow poles and markers, in conjunction with an educative approach.

The replacement of markers is a gradual programme, with reference to heritage values. The replacement of cairns can be notified through Park information and walking maps.

No change.

16.11 Supports the process for assessing commercial development.

Noted. No change.

9 16.12 The Trust should undertake further community education re snow management practices.

Noted. The Trust and HCC currently provide ongoing community education and information regarding road management practices.

No change.

16.13 Strongly opposed to cable-car and other options that require commercial development of Pinnacle. Suggests in-ground tunnelling as an alternative to the cable-car.


No change.

16.14 Supports a fee for vehicle access utilising the existing PWS process.

Noted. The Trust has previously canvassed public opinion on charging a user fee on Pinnacle Road, however has no immediate plan to do so.

No change.

16.15 Notes concern regarding impact of allowing bike access to more walking tracks.

The Trust has safety and use-based concerns regarding multiple-use of existing walking tracks, and will consider all impacts before allowing a change of use, as outlined in s 9.5.1.4.

No change.

19



16 Cont’d

11 16.16 Supports the inclusion of parcels identified in Map 9 where owned by State Government or under poor management. Notes some edits to listed references in s 11.4.2.

Noted. Amend s 11.4.2 to ensure accurate referencing of land parcels.

12 16.17 Notes the potential to use geographical image surveying to measure vegetation shift up the Mountain.

Noted. The emphasis is on the identification of indicators that can be effectively monitored, and the Plan references a GIS approach for vegetation monitoring.

No change.

13 16.18 Notes the budgetary constraint of the Trust, and suggests utilising the PWS entry fee system to raise revenue for management purposes.

Noted. The Trust has previously canvassed public opinion on charging a user fee on Pinnacle Road, however has no immediate plan to do so. Representations on the Plan have indicated strong support for retaining free public access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

17 4B, 9 17.1 Cable car is not viable and weather conditions are unfavourable. The Trust has ‘caved in’ to pressure to allow commercial development at Pinnacle.

Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

6 17.2 Telecommunications facilities are unsightly and should be removed.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1).

No change.

18 6 18.1 Supports Plan, particularly in relation to fire management policies, actions and KDOs.

Noted. No change.

19 4B, 9 19.1 Does not support cable car: need to retain the ‘wild’ element of the Mountain; need to ensure the Mountain provides a ‘challenge’; benefits of exposure to natural elements; need to respect, not ‘conquer’, the Mountain.


No change.

20 4B, 9 20.1 Does not support cable car or restaurant at Pinnacle: need to manage with sensitivity.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan notes the Trust’s preference for development of visitor services and facilities at the Springs.

No change.

20



21 4B, 9 21.1 The Plan identifies key natural values however should clearly state that there should be no cable car or development at Pinnacle.


22

2 22.1 The Plan should: refer to ‘character of place’ not ‘sense of place’; clearly identify the ‘austerity’ of the sub-alpine areas; define the values of the Park rather than using ‘values’ as a generic definition; ensure that access levels do not detract from the ‘austerity’ of the Park.

‘Sense of place’ (what a place means to people or how people react to and value a place) differs to ‘Character of place’ (the particular nature of a place that derives from its physical qualities and setting). In this context, the Plan is based upon ‘sense of place’, however it is acknowledged that ‘character of place’ is a legitimate consideration for future management.

The contrast between the urbanity of Hobart and the remote naturalness beyond the Pinnacle is a significant aspect of the Park, as previously identified in the Trust’s social values research, and could be included in the Plan as an independent value.

It is considered appropriate to retain the term ‘values’ and its use in the Plan, as it is comparable to other natural area management plans, refers to a range of ‘attributes of value’ eg flora fauna geoheritage, cultural heritage, and includes intrinsic values. The Plan contains considerable detail on the respective values, and further itemisation of the recognised values is considered unnecessary.

The Plan provides for detailed assessment standards to minimise the impact of any disturbances associated with improving access. It is acknowledged that some access levels are unachievable given the natural constraints of the Park.

Amend s 2.3.3 (Landscape and Aesthetics) to reflect the Park’s positioning as a boundary between the urban and natural areas.

21



23 4, 9 23.1 The Plan is informative, but should provide opportunities for guided walks rather than development.

The Plan provides for the creation of a range of interpretive opportunities, however does not define individual approaches. Guided walks are permitted under the Plan and are encouraged by the Trust.

No change.

23.2 Does not support cable-car or retail elements, and the existing access is acceptable.


24 2 24.1 Park should aim to provide ‘selected’ range of recreation opportunities given the natural values of the Park are not compatible with a ‘broad’ range, and the management objectives (s 2.5.2) should include reference to ‘sustainable’ opportunities.

The Plan seeks to implement the Trust’s desire for promotion of visitor activities and facilities, while protecting and preserving Park values (as required by the Act). Table 2 (chapter 4) of the Plan provides for allowable activities, and thus represent the ‘range’ of envisaged activities. Any further activities must be approved by the Trust and may be subject to the performance standards contained within the Plan, and will meet the ‘sustainable’ criteria.

No change.

3 24.2 Zone objectives: overall objectives should be qualified to ‘selected’ (not ‘broad’) range of recreation opportunities; Springs Specific Area should be qualified by ‘selective’ range of opportunities; Pinnacle Specific Area should be qualified by ‘sustainable’ visitor services and facilities.

Refer 24.1 (above). No change.

24.3 Zone values: delete ‘commercial facilities’ from Springs Specific Area (should be provided in Fern Tree); Pinnacle should be qualified with ‘sustainable’ visitor facilities.


4, 4A, 4B 24.4 All commercial development (including visitor centre) should be prohibited and located in Fern Tree; ‘Transport Depot and Distribution’ should not include a cable-car.


22



24 Cont’d

6 24.5 Plan should recommend active investigation of telecommunication alternatives, and state when WIN tower is likely to be replaced.


Include reference to expiry date of telecommunications leases in s 6.4.3.

8 24.6 No commercial infrastructure should be built in Springs/Pinnacle. Springs should not be ‘favoured’ area for visitor centre and Plan should explore alternatives to a visitor centre.


25 4B, 9 25.1 Supports development at Springs but no cable-car or other development of Pinnacle: unviable and would adversely impact the values identified in the Plan.


No change.

6 25.2 Considers telecommunications facilities are unsightly and should be removed.


Include reference to expiry date of telecommunications leases in s 6.4.3.

26 4B, 8, 9 26.1 Suggests existing observation shelter at Pinnacle should be replaced with more sensitive design incorporating commercial facilities, and an alternative transport means developed to provide access for all visitors.

The shelter at the Pinnacle is proposed to be upgraded by Hobart City Council, increasing its useful life. The Plan does not provide for a new master plan for the Pinnacle area, and thus future development relies upon proposals being submitted by developers. The Plan recommends the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, focussing on the establishment of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

27 9 27.1 Considers it important to maintain balance between protection of values and development, encourage young people to use the Park, and to keep free public access to Pinnacle Road. Trust should implement Mountain Bike Master Plan, particularly opening more multiple-use tracks.

Noted. The Trust has endorsed the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan, which recommends investigation of improved bike access through new and multiple-use tracks. The Plan requires the investigation of cultural heritage, use and environmental impacts, and safety issues before approving multiple-use of existing walking tracks (s 9.5.1.4).

No change.

23



28 4B, 9 28.1 Against commercial development/cable-car at Pinnacle: viability; weather conditions; closure of Pinnacle Road; serving of alcohol; impact upon recreation use; rubbish; Fern Tree is better location.


No change.

29 2 29.1 Access to the Mountain should be ‘environmentally sensitive and visually unobtrusive’, and Vision should not state ‘needs’.

The views are generally supported. The Vision however does not contain the word ‘needs’, and seeks to aspire to both protection of Park values and the provision of public enjoyment of the Park.

No change.

8, 9 29.2 Supports replacement of observation shelter at Pinnacle but does not support cable-car/cafe. Also supports interpretation centre at Springs, and upgrade of facilities in Fern Tree Park. Notes concerns over any improvements: rubbish; fire risk; invasive species; pollution; privacy; vandalism; public funding.


No change.

29.3 Supports shuttle bus to Springs. The Plan recommends the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, focussing on the establishment of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

30 4B, 9 30.1 Does not support cable-car: weather conditions; existing road access; viability; intrinsic values should be protected.


31 4B, 9 31.1 Does not support cable-car: viability; natural and cultural values should be protected.


32 4B, 9 32.1 Does not support cable-car: need eco-tourism not inappropriate development.


No change.

24



33 4B, 9 33.1 Any use/development should be subservient to protection of values (as required by Act).

The Trust has deliberately chosen to construct the Plan to reflect the emphasis on the promotion and enhancement of visitation experiences, including tourism and recreation activities, while protecting and conserving the Park’s natural and cultural values as required by the Act.

No change.

33.2 Does not support cable-car or duplication of Springs development, or closure of Pinnacle Road.


34 4B, 9 34.1 Does not support cable-car/commercial development at Pinnacle: should be left as wild place for future generations.


No change.

35 4B, 9 35.1 Does not support cable-car/commercial development at Pinnacle: should be protected for intrinsic values and for future generations. Supports limited development of Springs.


No change.

36 4B, 9 36.1 Does not support cable-car: should be protected for intrinsic values and for natural recreation. Park should be declared a National Park.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Park is reserved pursuant to the Act, which provides similar protections to that of a National Park.

No change.

37 4B, 8, 9 37.1 Does not support cable-car/commercial development at Pinnacle: diminishes natural and cultural values; access to Pinnacle road; protection of water quality; privatisation of Park; inability to meet KDOs; financial burden on public; protection for future generations.


37.2 Supports sensitive development of Springs, including shuttle bus service.

Agreed. The Trust’s preference is to develop the Springs as a long-stay destination, and the Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

25



38 4B, 9 38.1 Strongly opposed to cable-car: diminishes natural and cultural values, and visitor experience; access to Pinnacle road; financial burden on public. Supports low key facilities for shuttle bus service.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

39 4B, 9 39.1 Strongly opposed to cable-car: majority of people view Park from outside so cable-car would be an eye-sore; diminishes natural and cultural values, and visitor experience; access to Pinnacle Road.


40 4 40.1Trust should ensure it retains control over final approval of development in the Park.

Noted. This is provided under the Act. No change.

4B 40.2 Supports limited commercial development at Pinnacle but does not support cable-car given visual impact.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan seeks to ensure that commercial development at the Pinnacle is complementary to development of facilities at the Springs.

No change.

40.3 The Pinnacle Area boundary has been extended without indication as to why.

The area has been extended to provide for opportunities for use and development that would be unavailable within the previous zone boundary. The Trust has removed the previous prohibitions that restricted use and development, however has developed assessment standards to ensure the adverse impacts of use and development is avoided or minimised. It is agreed that the Plan should note the extension within the text.

Amend s 3.1.3 to reference the extension of the previous Pinnacle Zone to that of the Pinnacle Special Area.

40.4 Alternative transport options should ensure Pinnacle Road remains open and provide options for stops, and any access fee must go to management of the Park.

The Plan recommends the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, focussing on the establishment of a shuttle-bus service. This would inevitably provide for various stops along Pinnacle Road, and provide a potential income source for the Trust.

No change.

26



41 4B, 9 41.1 The Plan should explicitly prohibit a cable-car: diminishes natural and cultural values, and visitor experience; access to Pinnacle road. Supports low key facilities for shuttle bus service.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

42 4A, 4B, 9 42.1 The Plan should explicitly prohibit a cable-car: diminishes unique natural values and inconsistent with Act; visual impact (especially to rock climbers); access to Pinnacle road; public funding.


42.2 Supports development of Springs and shuttle bus during snow periods.

Agreed. The Trust’s preference is to develop the Springs as a long-stay destination, and the Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service.

No change.

43 4B, 9 43.1 Against cable-car/commercial development at Pinnacle: threat to free public access; drain on public purse; threat to environment; sourcing water supply.


44 4, 9 44.1 Objects to any commercial development within Park (lists 30 mandatory prescriptions for development).


44.2 Considers that Trust is failing in its responsibility to protect the Park.

The Trust seeks to balance the protection, conservation and management of the Park’s natural and cultural values, with the provision of high quality experiences for Park visitors.

No change

45 4, 9 45.1 Opposed to inappropriate development, including cable-car: protection of natural beauty; weather conditions; visual impact; lack of access to other areas.


45.2 Supports development of Springs. Agreed. The Trust’s preference is to develop the Springs as a long-stay destination.

No change.

27



46 4, 9 46.1 The Plan should provide for development of mountain bike and walking tracks, and an ‘indoor entertainment centre’. Current restaurant should be open for longer.

The Plan recommends the preparation of a Recreation Strategy (s 9.5.1) to consider the opportunities for enhancing recreation experiences; however the Trust will also investigate further recreation tracks arising both from its own planning strategies and the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan. The Trust aims to provide a range of visitor experiences at the Springs, which may contain elements of indoor entertainment and information. There is no existing restaurant within the Park.

No change.

47 2 47.1 Objectives for tourism and recreation should be qualified by ‘sustainable’.

It is considered that a ‘sustainable’ approach is inherent in the charter of the Trust, and the objectives of the Plan, and thus it is unnecessary to explicitly state that approach.

No change.

4A, 4B 47.2 Supports upgrade of Springs to eco-friendly restaurant/shop, and Junction Cabin.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust’s preference is to develop the Springs as a long-stay destination. Junction Cabin is an obvious recreation node, and is to be considered for further development of visitor facilities linked to recreation activities. The comment also raises the issue of master plans required for other key areas prior to any development of new facilities and services.

Include new action in s 8.5.6 recommending that a master plan be prepared for the Junction Cabin area, considering development of visitor facilities in keeping with the area’s natural and cultural values. Include in the action reference to the need for master plans for Fern Tree Park and the Chalet.

47.3 Does not support a cable-car: compromises integrity of Park; visual impacts of infrastructure.


48 4, 9 48.1 Opposed to any commercial development, including cable-car: Park is ‘not a resource to be exploited’; Pinnacle Road provides sufficient access.


49 4B, 9 49.1 Supports cable-car: better access than current Road; climate change benefits. Also supports more mountain bike tracks.

Refer discussion in section 4. Further mountain bike tracks will be developed in accordance with the Trust’s Bike Strategy.

No change.

28



50 4B, 9 50.1 Against cable-car: impact upon natural values and not a long-term benefit.


51 4B, 9 51.1 Cable-car should be prohibited and better public transport be provided to Springs/Pinnacle.


11 51.2 Plan should provide for a long-term link to the south-west wilderness area: connectivity and recreation benefits.

A vegetative link between the Park and the south-west has natural and recreation benefits, however exists without the necessity of reservation within the Park. The current inter-government process may result in parcels being reserved as public land, and may be considered in future reviews of the Plan. Acknowledged that the multi-day walk concept will benefit use of the Park.

No change.

52 4, 9 52.1 Opposed to inappropriate development, including cable-car: protection of natural values and beauty; existing access via Pinnacle Road.


52.2 Supports sensitive development of Springs. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

53 4 53.1 The current planning process should be retained.

Noted. No change.

9 53.2 Any transport option must: retain public access to Pinnacle road, particularly for rock climbing; be user pays not subsidised by access fees; and must not involve public funding.

The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system. The shuttle-bus could be operated in parallel with private vehicle access.

No change.

54 9 54.1 Any transport option must retain public access to Pinnacle road, particularly for recreation activities: the Road has historic value. Any cable-car must be viable without closing Pinnacle Road and any bus service should be user pays not subsidised by access fees.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust has no plans to introduce an access fee, and any alternative transport mode would be based upon a user-pays model.

No change.

55 4B, 9 55.1 Supports cable-car: ‘something exciting to do’.


29



56 4B, 9 56.1 Supports alternative cable-car route to Mount Nelson: better market; cheaper; less weather risk. Supports retention of Mountain as ‘natural viewing option’.


57 4B, 9 57.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts; protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; noise; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


58 4B, 9 58.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


59 4B, 9 59.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts; vegetation impacts; waste of funds.


60 4B, 9 60.1 Supports cable-car. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

61 4B, 9 61.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


62 4B, 9 62.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; protection for future generations.


63 4B, 9 63.1 Opposed to inappropriate development, including cable-car: protection of natural values and beauty; existing access via Pinnacle Road; impact on vegetation and ‘wildness’.


64 4B, 9 64.1 Opposed to cable-car/restaurant: impact on visual amenity; incompatible with Plan; removal of vegetation; existing access via Pinnacle Road.


30



65 4B, 9 65.1 Opposed to cable-car based upon experiences in Victoria: drop in user numbers and potential accidents.


66 4B, 9 66.1 Opposed to cable-car: ‘flagrant visual and physical intrusion’.








70 4A, 4B, 9 70.1 Supports Springs development. Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s preference for developing the Springs for long-stay visitation.

No change.

70.2 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road and concern about closures or government assistance.




72 4B, 9 72.1 Opposed to cable-car: protection of natural beauty.


31







75 4B, 9 75.1 Opposed to cable-car: leave Mountain natural.


76 4B, 9 76.1 Opposed to cable-car. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.



78 4B, 9 78.1 Opposed to cable-car: Mountain is unique and shouldn’t have private investment.








32





83 4B, 9 83.1 Opposed to cable-car: natural beauty. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

84 4B, 9 84.1 Opposed to cable-car: retain place of peace and quiet for future generations; visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


85 4B, 9 85.1 Opposed to cable-car: waste of money and visual impacts. Buses are better alternative.


86 4B, 9 86.1 Opposed to cable-car: impact upon vegetation and wildlife.




88 4B, 9 88.1 Opposed to cable-car: threats to flora (including introduction of Phytophthora and weeds) and fauna; visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; inconsistent with purposes of reservation and Park values; shift attention away from other areas and narrow visitor focus to Pinnacle.


89 4A, 4B, 9 89.1 Supports ‘respectful’ development at Springs, including replica of old Hotel.

Noted. The Plan provides for the assessment of an accommodation proposal at the Springs.

No change.

33



89 Cont’d

4A, 4B, 9 89.2 Opposed to cable-car: Mountain needs less infrastructure (aim to remove from Pinnacle); visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; in conflict with primary purpose of Park as nature reserve; need to retain Park for ‘peace and nourishment’; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


89.3 Supports shuttle bus system to reduce emissions and congestion, and improve access.

Agreed. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system.

No change.

8 89.4 Tracks to climbing locations should be maintained but not signed. Trust should prepare Climbers Code of Conduct to reduce unnecessary bolting.

The tracks are proposed to be signed for navigation and safety purposes, however will discourage general recreation access. The Trust has established links with the rock climbing community to investigate ongoing management issues, including developing a code of conduct for climbing in the Park.

No change.

90 4B, 9 90.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.




92 1,2 92.1 Plan clarifies role of Trust however the Plan wrongly elevates the provision of tourism and recreation above protection of values.

It is acknowledged that the Plan places greater emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience, however seeks to do this without adversely impacting upon the Park’s natural and cultural values.

No change.

3 92.2 Supports zoning, especially to emphasise need to protect Park from inappropriate development.

Noted. The list of allowable use and development is closely linked to the management objectives of the respective management zones.

No change.

34



92 Cont’d

4 92.3 Trust must retain ultimate planning approval role to avoid ‘fast-tracking’ of developments.

Noted. The Trust’s planning role is maintained as per the Act.

No change.

92.4 ‘Visual impact’ in the assessment standards should include from all areas within the Park.

The Performance Criteria for ‘Landscape, visual quality and amenity’ (Issue 5) in chapters 4, 4A & 4B all require that a proponent demonstrate how new developments in ‘prominent locations visible from within or outside of the Park’ will be ‘designed and sited to avoid or remedy any loss of visual values or impacts on the visual character’.

No change.

92.5 Assessment standards should require all habitable buildings to have water for fire fighting.

The assessment standards in chapters 4A & 4B require a water supply to be maintained for habitable buildings in the Springs and Pinnacle specific areas. It is noted that a drafting error resulted in the Performance Criteria for A6.4, and Acceptable Solution for P6.5in chapter 4A being omitted.

Include Performance Criteria for A6.4, and Acceptable Solution for P6.5 in chapter 4A based upon the corresponding text in chapter 4B.

92.6 Supports assessment of economic viability by Trust of private development. Plan should require rehabilitation bond to be lodged before development.

Refer discussion in section 4. The need for developers of approved proposals to lodge an environmental bond is a standard condition for large-scale developments, and would be addressed under any permit obtained from the relevant Planning Authority.

No change.

4A 92.7 Notes the need for adequate vehicle parking and security in the Springs.

Noted. Parking capacity will be addressed in any future development of the Springs.

No change.

4B 92.8 Opposes cable-car/restaurant: visual intrusion; concentration of visitors to Pinnacle; impacts upon natural values; impact on downstream water quality; associated commercial development; closure of Pinnacle Road.


35



92 Cont’d

4B 92.9 The Pinnacle Area boundary should be limited to existing developed areas.



5 92.10 A Cable-car will focus visitor pressure on Pinnacle leading to environmental impact.

Any development will be required to address such impacts, and will inevitably provide for hard-stand areas for visitors.

No change.

8 92.11 The Trust should not assume that increasing visitation is necessary, in light of impacts on Park values.

The Plan seeks to implement the Trust’s desire for promotion of visitor activities and facilities, while protecting and preserving Park values (as required by the Act). Table 2 (chapter 4) of the Plan provides for allowable activities, and thus represent the ‘range’ of envisaged activities. Any further activities must be approved by the Trust and may be subject to the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

92.12 The Springs is preferred development site with Pinnacle as ‘short stay’.

Noted and agreed. The Plan expresses the Trust’s preference for the Springs to be developed for long-stay activities and the Pinnacle for short-stay visitation.

No change.

92.13 The Plan should not provide for a ‘development corridor’ to the Pinnacle.

Refer discussion in section 4. As per proposed change in section 4.1.2 (n).

36



92 Cont’d

9 92.14 Pinnacle Road provides adequate access, and could have a fee to assist with management. Snow clearing procedures are adequate but further education required.

The Plan recommends implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which relies upon retention of Pinnacle Road. While an alternative transport mode may be user-pays, the Trust has no plan to charge Park access fees. The Trust works closely with the Hobart City Council to implement the snow clearance policy, including providing public education.

No change.

92.15 Trust should consider alternatives to a cable-car eg shuttle-buses.

Noted. The Plan notes the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System which recommends the investigation of shuttle-buses.

No change.

92.16 Existing walking tracks are unsuitable for multiple-use; tracks should be designed for multiple-use.

The Plan requires that investigation be undertaken into environmental and cultural impacts and issues, and public safety, prior to the change of single-use to multiple-use tracks (s 9.5.1.4).

No change.

10 92.17 The Springs is the ideal interpretation area, with supplementary information throughout Park.

Agreed. The Plan notes the preference to develop the Springs as the focal point for visitor services and facilities. This does not prevent the development of interpretation in other areas or via various media.

No change.

11 92.18 Simplification and better definition of the Park boundary may assist with regulation.

Generally agreed, however the Park boundary is a function of title boundaries. The Plan highlights land parcels that may assist with boundary rationalisation and some rationalisation is included in the Plan. The Plan recommends the commencement of the statutory process to amend the boundary of the Park. Further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues.

Amend s 11.4.5 to recommend that any change to the existing boundary be undertaken following further negotiation with land-owning agencies and other stakeholders.

37



92 Cont’d

13 92.19 Trust should consider Park entry fees as means of revenue for managing Park.

The Trust has previously canvassed public opinion on charging a user fee on Pinnacle Road, however has no immediate plan to do so. Representations on the Plan have indicated strong support for retaining free public access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

93 1 93.1 The Plan should promote and prioritise the protection of natural and cultural values ahead of the ‘provision’ of tourism and recreation.


No change.

2, 3 93.2 Park’s Biophysical Naturalness rating indicates that the area is comparable to a National Park.

Noted. The Plan (s 2.3: Completeness–Ecological Integrity and Diversity) notes that in the Tasmanian Reserve Estate Layer the Park is classified as IUCN Category II (National Park Equivalent).

No change.

93.3 Geodiversity section (s 2.3.2) could be better developed and additional locations included.

Noted and agreed. Include further references to geological features in s 2.3.2.

93.4 The management principles (s 2.5.1) and management objectives (s 2.5.2) should be in a different order to note the priority of protecting the Park’s environment. Notes however that the Plan recognises the primary objective is the protection of the environment.

The principles and objectives reflect the Trust’s desire to place greater emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience. The Plan however seeks to ensure that this is implemented without adversely impacting upon the Park’s natural and cultural values.

No change.

4 93.5 Critical for Trust to retain ultimate approval role.

Noted. The Trust has maintained its role provided by the Act.

No change.

93.6 Supports management of Pinnacle Area for short-stay use.

Noted. The Plan provides for this approach. No change.

38



93 Cont’d

4 93.7 Table 2: suggests that rough camping could be allowed in the Remote Zone subject to ‘Fuel Stove Only’ policy.

The limitation of rough camping in the Remote Zone to search and rescue purposes recognises that the natural values of this area are sensitive to impact, and ongoing use of the area for camping can have an adverse effect on the area. The impact of camping extends beyond the use of camp-fires, and includes trampling, habitat disturbance and impacts on water quality.

No change.

93.8 Table 3: there needs to be better explanation of the association of camping with an approved multi-day track.

The concept of a multi-day recreation track is discussed further in ss 9.3.2 & 9.5.1.4 of the Plan. Table 3 seeks to provide for the possibility of infrastructure associated with the track, should it be proposed and approved.

Amend Table 3 to include reference to ss 9.3.2 & 9.5.1.4 of the Plan.

93.9 The Plan makes no mention of environmental bonds for rehabilitation of development sites.

Refer discussion in section 4. The need for developers of approved proposals to lodge an environmental bond is a standard condition for large-scale developments, and would be addressed under any permit obtained from the relevant Planning Authority.

No change.

93.10 Emphasises the need to advertise Discretionary uses and developments.

This is a requirement of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 and the Plan.

No change.

93.11 ‘Visual impact’ in the assessment standards should include from all areas within the Park.

The Performance Criteria for ‘Landscape, visual quality and amenity’ (Issue 5) in chapters 4, 4A & 4B all require that a proponent demonstrate how new developments in ‘prominent locations visible from within or outside of the Park’ will be ‘designed and sited to avoid or remedy any loss of visual values or impacts on the visual character’.

No change.

4A 93.12 The Springs will require adequate short and long term parking and vehicle security.

Noted and will be addressed in any future development of the Springs.

No change.

93.13 Only shuttle buses should be considered as a Potential Transport Mode given adverse impacts of other modes.

Noted. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system.

No change.

39



93 Cont’d

4A 93.14 S1.6 Issue 6: potential conflict between Objective iv and A6.4 re water supply for fire fighting.

The assessment standards in chapters 4A & 4B require a water supply to be maintained for habitable buildings in the Springs and Pinnacle specific areas. It is noted that a drafting error resulted in the Performance Criteria for A6.4, and Acceptable Solution for P6.5in chapter 4A being omitted.

Include Performance Criteria for A6.4, and Acceptable Solution for P6.5 in chapter 4A based upon the corresponding text in chapter 4B.

4B 93.15 Opposes cable-car and any associated infrastructure: inconsistent with the purposes of the Pinnacle Area; adverse impacts upon environment; provides for short-term gains at expense of local values; concentration of visitors to the Pinnacle Area; Pinnacle Road provides better opportunities.


93.16 The Pinnacle Area boundary should be limited to existing developed areas.



5 93.17 Notes concern over use of walking tracks by mountain bikers leading to degradation and safety issues.

The Plan requires that investigation be undertaken into environmental and cultural impacts and issues, and public safety, prior to the change of single-use to multiple-use tracks (s 9.5.1.4). Further, s 9.5.1.11 provides for use management options based upon identified impacts to recreation tracks.

No change.

6 93.18 The listed values are natural/cultural, and would be adversely impacted by a cable-car.

Refer discussion in section 4. Any proposal would be assessed in accordance with the performance standards contained in the Plan, and demonstrate compliance with the relevant Performance Criteria.

No change.

40



93 Cont’d

7 93.19 Any large-scale development at the Pinnacle may negatively impact upon downstream water quality.

Refer discussion in section 4. Any proposal would be assessed in accordance with the relevant Performance Criteria.

No change.

8 93.20 The Springs provides the better option for development, and would ensure that the debate over development of the Pinnacle is avoided.

Agreed. The Plan (s 8.5.3.1) notes the preference to develop the Springs as the focal point for visitor services and facilities.

No change.

93.21 The Trust should take positive action to commence removal of ‘offending infrastructure’ at Pinnacle, and rehabilitation of the Pinnacle Area, as befitting the Park’s status.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1). However the Trust envisages continuation of visitor facilities at the Pinnacle, and the Plan provides for the potential for such facilities to be considered.

No change.

93.22 The Plan should not provide for a ‘development corridor’ to the Pinnacle.


9 93.23 Notes that Pinnacle Road provides excellent opportunities to stop and enjoy the Park, and would support a ‘user pays’ system so long as it is not used to support private development.

Noted. The Trust’s Sustainable transport System recommends consideration of a fee-based shuttle-bus service.

No change.

93.24 Supports the continuation of the existing Pinnacle Road Snow Management Strategy.

Noted. No change.

93.25 Supports the implementation of the Sustainable Transport System.

Noted. No change.

93.26 Concerned at use of walking tracks by mountain bikes, and suggests a specific complaint mechanism on Trust’s website. Notes that mountain bikes impact upon quiet enjoyment of walking and multiple-use should not be retro-fitted to existing tracks.

The Plan requires that investigation be undertaken into environmental and cultural impacts and issues, and public safety, prior to the change of single-use to multiple-use tracks (s 9.5.1.4). The Trust will undertake further studies into existing use patterns and values of walking tracks prior to considering multiple-use. It is considered that the website provides sufficient options for complaints and other feedback.

No change.

41



93 Cont’d

10 93.27 The Springs is the ideal interpretation area, with supplementary information throughout Park.

Agreed. The Plan notes the preference to develop the Springs as the focal point for visitor services and facilities. This does not prevent the development of interpretation in other areas or via various media.

No change.

11 93.28 Better definition of Park boundary may assist with regulation and enforcement.

Generally agreed, however the Park boundary is a function of title boundaries. The Plan highlights land parcels that may assist with boundary rationalisation and some rationalisation is included in the Plan. The Plan recommends the commencement of the statutory process to amend the boundary of the Park. Further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues.


13 93.29 Trust should consider Park entry fees as means of revenue for managing Park.

The Trust has previously canvassed public opinion on charging a user fee on Pinnacle Road, however has no immediate plan to do so. Representations on the Plan have indicated strong support for retaining free public access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

Other 93.30 Supports thorough and comprehensive approach while noting need for further proof-reading

Noted. Undertake thorough edit.

93.31 Trust should maintain protection of natural values and defend against anthropocentric approach and private development.

The Trust seeks to maintain a balance between the protection of Park values and the provision of facilities and services. It is recognised that the Plan emphasises the provision of visitor experiences and infrastructure, however this is considered to be within the bounds of the Act.

No change.



42



95 4B, 9 95.1 Opposed to cable-car: Mountain has vehicular access and insufficient snow levels.


95.2 Trust should maintain free access to Pinnacle Road.

The Plan does not specifically require ongoing free access, however any change to the existing access would require further community consultation.

No change.

96 96.1 No comment submitted. No change.

97 4B, 9 97.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty.






100 4, 4B, 9 100.1 Opposed to major development, specifically a cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; change the feel of Hobart.


101 4B, 9 101.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Management Plan.


102 4B, 9 102.1 Supports cable car: low environmental and aesthetic impact and footprint; reduce traffic; tourism benefits.


103 4B, 9 103.1 Supports current management of Park and provision of existing nature-based tourism opportunities.

Noted. The Trust is seeking to enhance visitation while protecting and conserving natural and cultural values.

No change.

103.2 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; vegetation clearance and potential for landslip; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; possible increases in litter.


43





105 6 105.1 Affirms Aboriginal heritage values and supports meaningful involvement of Aboriginal community through negotiation and possible dual or re-naming of Mount Wellington, and archaeological surveys.

Noted. The Plan references the dual naming of the broader Park. Any investigation of dual naming would be in accordance with the State Government’s Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy (released (March 2013). The Plan also provides for long-term engagement with the Aboriginal community.



106 4B, 5, 6, 9 106.1 Opposed to cable-car: against the interests of the public and the Park; impacts upon ecosystems (requires independent ecological review), landscape, drinking water quality and cultural heritage values; is a ‘novelty’ proposal.


106.2 Supports trial of regular shuttle bus system. Noted. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system.

No change.



108 4A, 4B, 9 108.1 Supports current management of Park and notes Hobart’s unique values.

Noted. No change.

108.2 Supports boutique hotel at the Springs. Noted. The Plan provides for consideration of accommodation at the Springs.

No change.

108.3 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; costs.


108.4 Supports over-snow transport in snow periods.

The Plan recommends continuation of the existing snow clearance policy, based upon the desire to open the road to public and maintenance access as early as possible.

No change.

44



108 Cont’d

4A, 4B, 9 108.5 Supports mountain-biking however concerned at extent of proposals for downhill riding given the existence of the Glenorchy Mountain Bike Park.

Further mountain biking opportunities will be considered and investigated as outlined in the Trust’s Bike Strategy. Options for downhill riding will be considered for single-use only.

No change.

6 108.6 Should reduce presence of communications facilities.


No change.

10 108.7 Scope for more interpretation on cultural heritage sites.

Agreed. The Trust is currently preparing an interpretation strategy for historic features of the Park.

No change.

109 1, 2 109.1 Principles and values of Plan must be upheld.

Noted. No change.

4, 4B, 8, 9 109.2 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; uneconomic and require public funding; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; replicates approved development at Springs; panders to short-stay tourism; weather is capricious; overloading of Pinnacle; impacts upon drinking water quality.


109.3 Supports low key development at Pinnacle for buses and car-based visitors, and replacement of observation shelter.

The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system. This would require better shelters and other facilities at the Pinnacle.

No change.

109.4 Development corridor to Springs and Pinnacle should be explicitly forbidden.


45



109 Cont’d

10 109.5 Notes the need to clearly define the Park boundary.

Generally agreed, however the Park boundary is a function of title boundaries. The Plan recommends the commencement of the statutory process to amend the boundary of the Park. Further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues.


12 109.6 Trust must maintain its independence and not be over-ridden by Government.

Noted. The Trust’s (and the Minister’s) role is clearly defined in the Act.

No change.

110 4B, 9 110.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with objectives of Act; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; irreversible financial and environmental risk.


111 9 111.1 Supports greater horse-riding access linking Hobart and Glenorchy management areas (map provided)

The Plan maintains the existing extent of horse access, and prescribes which trails may be accessed. Access is allowed by permit to the more remote trails where there is less likelihood of conflict with other users, particularly mountain bikes. The Plan however also recommends the preparation of a recreation strategy, which could investigate future riding options. Also, the provision of bike riding and walking tracks and trails is delegated to the respective subsidiary strategies.

Amend s 9.5.3.2 to note that riding may be otherwise permitted if approved by the Trust in a recreation strategy prepared in accordance with the Plan.

112 3, 4 112.1 Commercial development should be confined to Springs and include free amenities.


112.2 Opposes commercial development of Pinnacle but supports upgrade of infrastructure eg bus shelter.


112.3 Supports limiting infrastructure in Remote Zone apart from existing tracks and trails with some route improvements.

Noted. No change.

112.4 Supports mooted multi-day track and discrete huts.

Noted. The Plan enables consideration of the multi-day track should it be deemed viable.

No change.

46



112 Cont’d

9 112.5 Opposes cable car. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

112.6 Supports shuttle-bus service for busy periods, including bike carriage and stops along Pinnacle Road.

Noted. The Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service, and bike carriage would be a component of the service.

No change.

113 4A, 4B, 9 113.1 Supports development at Springs. Noted. The Plan indicates the Trust’s preference for visitor facilities and services to be provided at the Springs.

No change.

113.2 Opposed to cable-car and large restaurant at Pinnacle: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance.


113.3 Supports small cafe within existing structures at Pinnacle.

The Plan provides for consideration of commercial development that is complementary to the development of the Springs.

No change.

114 4B, 9 114.1 Opposed to cable-car: disturbance to intrinsic and natural values.


115 4,9 115.1 Supports development of ‘suitable infrastructure and facilities’ at Springs and Pinnacle.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan provides for development to be considered at both locations.

No change.

115.2 Important to maintain public access to Pinnacle Road.

Refer discussion in section 4. While the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system complementing ongoing public access to Pinnacle Road, the Trust’s view is that a prescription to maintain ongoing private vehicle access to Pinnacle Road may limit the investigation of alternative transport options which may be proposed by private enterprise.

No change.

47



116 4B, 9 116.1 Opposed to cable-car and commercial development at Pinnacle: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; water supply issues; waste water issues; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; impact upon other commercial operators; probable need for public subsidies.


116.2 Notes that Trust has gone against the outcomes of the Discussion Paper.

Noted. The Trust has considered the outcomes of the Discussion Paper and addressed the issues on their merits.

No change.

116.3 Opposes any access fee on Pinnacle Road. Noted. The Trust has no immediate plans to charge an access fee on Pinnacle Road.

No change.

117 4A, 4B, 9 117.1 Supports Springs development. Noted. No change.

117.2 Opposed to cable-car: visual pollution; impact upon eco-system; financial viability and closure of Pinnacle Road; weather conditions.


117.3 Supports regular public transport options (for all users) and better sign-posting from Hobart.

Noted. However the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system complementing ongoing public access to Pinnacle Road. The Plan recommends that the Trust work to improve signs and entry experiences to the Park (s 9.5.2.1).

No change.

117.4 Supports improved interpretation. Noted. The intention is to provide improved services at both the Springs and Pinnacle, including both physical (signs) and digital approaches.

No change.

48



118 1 118.1 Encourages the placement in Ch 1 of a KDO to protect landscape values.

Chapter 1 is introductory and contains no management objectives or prescriptions. KDO’s for landscape/aesthetic values are provided in ch 6 (s 6.3.3).

No change.

4, 9 118.2 Does not support any commercial development in Park including cable-car: does not benefit Park.


118.3 Any infrastructure development should be low key and minimal.

The various management objectives and assessment criteria for the respective management zones provide the mechanism for controlling the scale and function of development within the Park.

No change.

118.4 Supports shuttle-bus service during busy periods.

Noted. The Trust supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service however it is noted that short-term services are problematic due to investment costs.

8 118.5 Supports better walking connection from Lost World to summit that by-passes Pinnacle Road.

Noted. The Plan delegates the resolution of recreation linkages to subsidiary planning strategies.

No change.

118.6 Notes preference for single-use tracks however where multiple-use bikes should give way.

The Plan requires that investigation be undertaken into environmental and cultural impacts and issues, and public safety, prior to the change of single-use to multiple-use tracks (s 9.5.1.4).

No change.

49



119 General 119.1 Supports Plan and the principle of enhancing visitor and tourism experiences.

Noted. No change.

3 119.2 Concerned that extent of Restricted Area (Knights Creek) limits potential for recreation opportunities, and conflicts with zone objectives

The Trust considers that the Restricted Area has been effective both as an educational and regulatory tool in achieving protection of drinking water quality. However the Trust also recognises that there may be suitable approved recreational assets and activities that may be provided within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality; this accords with the management objectives for the zone as provided in s 3.2.2 of the Plan. The Plan prescribes public access to be permitted to some existing tracks within the Restricted Area eg Knights Creek Track, and this could be extended to include other new recreation tracks that are approved in accordance with the Plan.

Any proposals for use and development are subject to the performance standards in chapter 4 of the Plan; the standards include specific reference to water quality (Table 5, Issue 3). Further, s 7.4.2 provides limitations on use and developments within buffer areas to watercourses within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone, while s 4.5.5.3 requires all proposals requiring a LUPAA permit to be referred to Southern Water for advice. The Plan could also recognise the need for appropriate water quality risk assessments to be carried out on proposals for new assets in the Drinking Water Catchment Zone.

Amend s 7.4.1 to allow for public access to new recreation tracks and trails within the Restricted Area, approved in accordance with the Management Plan and as endorsed for access by the Trust.

Amend s 9.5.1.10 to require that, within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone, proposals for any new recreation tracks, or the realignment of existing tracks, shall be accompanied by a suitable water quality risk assessment.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 3, P3.3) to require that any proposal must include a water quality risk assessment prepared by a suitably qualified person.

50



119 Cont’d

6 119.3 Concerned that the Plan refers to social values actions contained in separate strategy without publicising these in the draft Plan.

The Plan sets the statutory framework for management of the Park, however, in the interests of flexibility and currency, allows for some policy and management approaches to be set via subsidiary planning strategies. The Wellington Park Social Values and Landscape Assessment provides management recommendations that may act as policy guidelines under the statutory Plan, however at the point of making the Plan, the guidelines had not been adopted as policy by the Trust.

Amend s 6.3.4.1 to require that the Park’s landscape and other social values are taken into account in the management of the Park.

9 119.4 Notes the need to ensure subsidiary strategies referred to in the Plan are updated and accurate.

Agreed. This is an administrative issue that needs to be addressed by the Trust beyond the Plan.

No change.

120 4B, 9 120.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; requires further infrastructure at Pinnacle; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; weather concerns; possibility of Government subsidies; carbon footprint of cable-car is larger.


120.2 Supports public bus access by Metro to Mountain and Collinsvale.

Noted. However the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system complementing ongoing public access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

121 4A, 4B, 9 121.1 Supports development at Springs but also happy to have no commercial development.

Noted. The Plan indicates the Trust’s preference for visitor facilities and services to be provided at the Springs.

No change.

121.2 Opposed to cable-car: often poor visibility; naturalness.


51



122 4, 9 122.1 Opposed to commercial development and cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


122.2 Supports day-use only of Springs ie no accommodation.

Noted. The Plan indicates the Trust’s preference for visitor facilities and services to be provided at the Springs. The Plan provides for consideration of accommodation at the Springs however does not specifically require accommodation for any proposal.

No change.

123 4, 9 123.1 Opposed to cable-car: incompatible with Act and Management Plan; visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


123.2 Supports Springs development and associated public bus access.


Noted.

124 4, 9 124.1 Opposed to cable-car and commercial development at Pinnacle: commercial development exists at Pinnacle; impact upon naturalness; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


124.2 Concerned at how quickly the Road is closed due to snow.

Decisions to close Pinnacle Road are made in the interests of public safety in accordance with the Pinnacle Road Snow Management Strategy. Closures are implemented by field staff based upon current road conditions, and/or Tasmania Police based upon traffic management issues.

No change.

125 4B, 9 125.1 Opposed to commercial development of Pinnacle, particularly a cable-car: landscape values; subsurface water flows; viability and accessibility via Pinnacle Road; impact upon Fern Tree businesses.


52



126 4A, 4B, 9 126.1 Supports development of Springs and public transport to the Springs.


No change.

126.2 Opposed to cable-car and large restaurant at Pinnacle: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


126.3 Supports small cafe at Pinnacle. The Plan provides for consideration of commercial development that is complementary to the development of the Springs.

No change.

8, 9 126.4 Supports rationalisation of climbers’ tracks but does not support signs on those tracks apart from GPS markers.

Following consultation with the climbing community, the tracks are proposed to be signed for navigation and safety purposes, however will discourage general recreation access.

No change.

126.5 Supports development of Code of Conduct for climbing. Bolting should be stringently managed to avoid visual and natural impacts.

The Trust has established links with the rock climbing community to investigate ongoing management issues, including developing a code of conduct for climbing in the Park. Bolting is one issue that will be considered in the code.

No change.

127 4A, 4B, 9 127.1 Supports development of Springs and public transport to the Springs.


No change.

127.2 Opposed to cable-car and large restaurant at Pinnacle: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


127.3 Supports small cafe at Pinnacle. The Plan provides for consideration of commercial development that is complementary to the development of the Springs.

No change.

53



127 Cont’d

8, 9 127.4 Supports rationalisation of climbers’ tracks but does not support signs on those tracks apart from GPS markers.

The tracks are proposed to be signed for navigation and safety purposes, however will discourage general recreation access.

No change.

127.5 Supports development of Code of Conduct for climbing. Bolting should be stringently managed to avoid visual and natural impacts.

The Trust has established links with the rock climbing community to investigate ongoing management issues, including developing a code of conduct for climbing in the Park.

No change.

128 4, 9 128.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; impact upon ‘wildness’.


129 4, 9 129.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


130 4, 9 130.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; contrary to Act; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; sense of place values.


130.2 Service corridor to Pinnacle must be forbidden.


131 3 131.1 Supports inclusion of Mountain Bike Overlay in Glenorchy area.

Noted. No change.

131.2 Supports the reduction of Restricted Area (Limekiln) as shown in Plan.

Noted. No change.

4 131.3 Notes the need for the five municipal planning schemes covering the Park to have consistent provisions when referencing the Park to minimise potential conflict between the schemes and the Plan.

Agreed. Consistency in the respective planning schemes will assist in implementation of the Plan.

No change.

54



131 Cont’d

9 131.4 Supports the consideration of additions to Big Bend fire trail and Knights Creek Track to allow mountain bike use, and in conjunction with the multi-day recreation track concept.

The Trust considers that it is not appropriate to structure the Plan to address the proposed additions to Knights Creek Track in isolation. However, as noted in 119.2 (above), the Plan is proposed to be amended to allow consideration of recreational assets and activities within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality, and for access to these tracks and trails be permitted as far as they relate to the Restricted Area.




11 131.5 Notes the need to consider extending the Park in the Glenorchy area (excluding the gun clubs).

The Plan recommends the commencement of the statutory process to amend the boundary of the Park. Further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues.


132 4, 9 132.1 Supports development of Springs, and not the Pinnacle.


No change.

132.2 Supports shuttle-bus from Springs to Pinnacle.

The Plan supports the investigation of a shuttle-bus service in accordance with the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System.

No change.

132.3 Does not support cable-car: visual impacts; accessibility of Pinnacle Road.


55



132 Cont’d

10 132.4 Pinnacle South-West Lookout should include landscape interpretation panels.

Noted. This was considered during the development of the interpretation however was rejected on the basis it detracted from the Aboriginal content of the installation. This issue can be revisited without the need for a recommendation in the Management Plan.

No change.

133 4, 9 133.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; vegetation clearance; contrary to Act and objectives of Management Plan; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; financial viability.


133.2 Supports development at the Springs: better conditions for longer stay and less impact.

Agreed. The Trust favours the development of long-stay visitor services and facilities at the Springs (s 8.5.3.1).

No change.

133.3 Supports improvements at Pinnacle for buses and car-based visitors.

Noted. The Sustainable Transport System endorsed by the Trust (inclusive of shuttle-buses) will require development of improved parking and sheltering arrangements.

No change.

134 4 134.1 Notes that a PAA should not be required for Exempt works, and notes operation rights under National Transmission Network Sale Act 1998.

While activities may be Exempt under LUPAA, it is important that a PAA be prepared to address potential management issues where there may be adverse impact upon Park values. No PAA will be required where the works/proposal does not trigger an affirmative response on the Proposal Checklist (App 3B).

Amend s 4.4.2 to note the rights operators under the National Transmission Network Sale Act 1998.

6 134.2 Corrects factual statement in s 6.4.3 regarding management of Broadcast Australia (BA) leasehold.

Noted. Amend s 6.4.3 to accurately reflect existing situation.

56



134 Cont’d

6 134.3 Supports in-principle the relocation of all telecommunications facilities to the BA tower but notes the need to review applications on a case-by-case basis.

The Plan encourages the rationalisation of all telecommunication facilities (s 6.4.3.1).

No change.

9 134.4 Supports alternative access mode (particularly cable-car) only if it occurs as an additional access option to Pinnacle Road.

The Plan does not prescribe continued access to Pinnacle Road, however the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System prioritises ongoing use of the road in the short term. The Plan does however provide for consideration of other Potential Transport Modes, which may seek to rely on closure of Pinnacle Road to ensure viability. The Trust has reaffirmed its desire to minimise any prohibitions on such proposals, and to allow proposals to be assessed via the performance standards in chapter 4.

No change.

135 1, 2 135.1 Notes its view that the Park has status equivalent to a National Park (IUCN Category 2) and is not subject to the National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002, and that this should be documented in the Plan.

Agreed. This would help to clarify the reservation purpose and status of the Park.

Include relevant text in s 1.2 of the Plan.

135.2 Suggests that the order of relevant KDOs (s 2.6) and values (s 6.1) be changed to reflect the management principles and objectives of the Plan.

The Trust has deliberately chosen to construct the Plan to reflect the emphasis on the promotion and enhancement of visitation experiences, including tourism and recreation activities, while protecting and conserving the Park’s natural and cultural values. The ordering of the various objectives and values lists reflects this approach.

No change.

57



135 Cont’d

3 135.3 Notes the Plan should clarify how management zone boundaries were determined, and that the Plan should include an action to review the zones for the next Plan.

Boundaries for the Recreation, Natural, Remote and Drinking Water Catchment management zones remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan. The basis of the boundaries are recognisable geographic, topographic or catchment features which provide adequate protection for the values within the respective areas. The exception to this is the previous Springs and Pinnacle zones, which have been incorporated into the Recreation Zone as ‘Special Areas’, to better conform with the State Government planning template. These areas have recognised special values and have their own use and development tables to distinguish them from the broader Park. It is considered unnecessary to specifically recommend that the current zoning be reviewed as the Trust will determine the extent of any review at that time.

No change.

135.4 Notes the extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area from previous Pinnacle Zone, and suggests this be justified in the Plan.



58



135 Cont’d

4 135.5 Queries whether the Plan’s performance-based approach to assessment is relevant for natural areas. Suggests inclusion of an action to review this approach in time for the next Plan.

The performance-based approach provides for proponents to demonstrate compliance with performance standards set by the Plan. The standards seek to cover the full range of natural and cultural values however it is acknowledged that the complexity of the natural system results in a reliance on subjective judgments made under the respective performance criteria. The performance-based approach is however utilised by the State Government in its planning template, and is relevant to the Park given the application of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. It is considered unnecessary to specifically recommend that the issue be reviewed as the Trust will determine the extent of any review at that time.

No change.

135.6 Supports the retention of the Trust’s independent approvals process.

Noted. No change.

135.7 Considers Table 2 (Allowable Activities) and Table 3 Permitted, Discretionary and Prohibited Use and Development) should be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with zone objectives, especially in relation to the Remote Zone.

The tables have been reviewed and are considered to be consistent with the management approach and zone objectives.

No change.

135.8 Concerned that the inclusion of uses and development relating to the multi-day recreation track have been included in the Remote Zone and their inconsistency with the objectives of that zone.

The proposed multi-day walk is currently undergoing a feasibility study, and any proposal will be required to demonstrate minimal impact upon Park values, and the necessity for having them within the Park eg s 4.5.2.5. Given the uncertainty as to the exact location of any camping sites or bunk houses, the Trust determined that it was better to create an exception for these facilities within the Remote Zone rather that changing the zone boundaries to accommodate the facilities. This reflects the Trust’s desire to promote visitation experiences and activities within the Park.

No change.

59



135 Cont’d

4B 135.9 Considers a cable-car and associated development eg ‘food services’ should be prohibited at Pinnacle, and are inconsistent with the purposes of the Park under the Act and the principles of the Management Plan, and objectives of the Pinnacle Specific Area Plan, due to: impacts on values and qualities of Park; conflict with Trust’s vision; failure to meet relevant KDOs; Pinnacle is already accessible via Pinnacle Road, and the cable-car conflicts with the Trust’s existing Sustainable Transport System; concern over public subsidies; loss of ‘public experience‘ to private development; impacts upon aesthetics and ‘wildness’; unnecessary to develop the Pinnacle if the Springs is developed; water supply and waste water issues.


6 135.10 Believes Plan (s 6.1) fails to acknowledge Park’s rare/threatened species and geoheritage values.

Noted. The text was not intended to be an exclusive list.

Amend s 6.1 to reference suggested natural values.

135.11 Considers that the Plan gives precedence to managing threats to natural and cultural values, and that it should be restructured to ensure the management of natural values is considered before the identification of threats to those values.

The structure of the Plan seeks to ensure a flow from the identification of threats to values to the management of the values to avoid or minimise the impact from the identified threat.

No change.

135.12 The Plan should have separate chapters providing for natural and cultural values.

The inclusion of natural and cultural values in the one chapter ensures a comprehensive approach to the issue. It is considered that there would be little real benefit in breaking the existing chapter into two discrete chapters.

No change.

135.13 Strongly supports the audit of the Park’s natural values, as recommended in the Plan.

Noted. No change.

60



135 Cont’d

8 135.14 Suggests that the Trust should clarify why the Plan has an increased emphasis on provision of visitor services and facilities.

The Trust has deliberately chosen to construct the Plan to reflect the emphasis on the promotion and enhancement of visitation experiences, including tourism and recreation activities, while protecting and conserving the Park’s natural and cultural values. While it is generally considered unnecessary to justify changes in management approach in the new Plan, this issue warrants clarification.

Amend s 2.5.1 to include clarification of the Plan’s increased emphasis on the promotion of visitation experiences and opportunities, and the change from the previous Plan.

135.15 Notes it is critical that any new developments or uses are underpinned by research data that shows the proposal will not adversely affect the Park’s natural and cultural values.

The Plan provides an enabling approach to the assessment of new uses and developments ie it provides for certain classes of allowable uses and developments with minimal prohibitions. The Plan takes a performance-based approach in assessing uses and development, with performance standards designed to identify and minimise any adverse impacts upon Park values.

No change.

136 4, 9 136.1 Supports Springs development if relocated to Lower Springs: retain existing picnic areas, heritage huts and easily accessible public toilets; less removal of vegetation; better siting.

The Plan does not prescribe the location of the visitor centre; consequently it is possible for a new centre proposal to be located in a different position, subject to cultural heritage and access considerations. The location of the approved visitor centre is based upon maximisation of access, visibility from Pinnacle Road and views into the Park. New picnic areas and toilets are proposed for the Lower Springs area to balance any loss of existing facilities. The approved centre also minimises any removal of vegetation.

No change.

136.2 Opposed to cable-car: accessibility via Pinnacle Road; visual and noise impacts and protection of natural beauty; contrary to principles of Management Plan.


61



136 Cont’d

136.3 Opposes other major development at Pinnacle: proximity of alternatives in Fern Tree and South Hobart; impact upon water values; waste water management; increase in litter; general unspoilt nature of area.


137 General 137.1 Considers format of Plan to be complex and confusing, and difficult to use. Recommends adoption of format of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Management Plan 1999 (TWWHAMP).

Noted, however it is considered that the Plan provides for a logical approach to the consideration and management of Park values and issues.

No change.

137.2 The Plan should contain a prioritisation of the policies and actions.

The Plan recommends the preparation of an Implementation Strategy (s 13.5.1) which identifies the priority of the recommended actions. This provides for flexibility in determining priorities based upon the Adaptive Management approach taken by the Plan.

No change.

2 137.3 Considers the Act (and previous Plans) provides for protection of Park’s natural and cultural values to be prioritised over use (including recreational use), and is similar to the status/purpose of a National Park as outlined in the Nature Conservation Act 2002.

The Trust’s view is that the Plan should actively provide and promote the development of visitation activities and experiences (including recreation) so long as they remain consistent with the Park’s natural and cultural values. This is in accordance with the purposes of reservation as provided under the Act.

No change.

137.4 Recommends that the Plan differentiate ‘uses’ from the Park’s natural and cultural ‘values’.

The Trust recognises some uses of the Park to be ‘values’ in themselves, including visitation uses and experiences and the supply of drinking water. Both of these uses are recognised as reasons for reserving the Park under the Act, and all values identified under the Act are to be protected, preserved and/or provided without adverse impact upon other listed values. Consequently, it is considered unnecessary to further differentiate between uses and values within the Plan.


62



137 Cont’d

2 137.5 Strongly supports the Plan’s objectives and principles (s 2.5).

Noted. No change.

137.6 Plan should reference nationally accepted standards and policies, as per the TWWHAMP eg Burra Charter, Precautionary Principle etc.

It is agreed that the Plan should reference, and management of the Park be guided by, the suggested documents and principles, following the approach of the TWWHAMP.

Insert new section (s 1.3) to reference the guiding principles and documents.

3 137.7 Unclear as to how zone boundaries are derived, and appear to be ‘use-based’ rather than ‘values-based’, resulting in inability to meet legislative requirements for conservation. Suggests Plan include an action to allow transition to values-based zoning in next Plan.

Boundaries for the Recreation, Natural, Remote and Drinking Water Catchment management zones remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan. The basis of the boundaries are recognisable geographic, topographic or catchment features which provide adequate protection for the values within the respective areas while providing for desired uses. It is considered unnecessary to specifically recommend that the current zoning be reviewed as the Trust will determine the extent of any review at that time.

No change.

4 137.8 The Plan fails to justify the changes to existing prohibitions on commercial development of the Pinnacle and the inclusion of the multi-day recreation track. The Plan should maintain the prohibition on a cable-car and not cater for the multi-day walk, and any future developments be based upon publicly available research indicating need and impact assessments.

The Plan removes the prohibition at the Pinnacle to enable assessment of proposals under a performance-based approach, utilising the performance standards provided in chapter 4. This is in response to the Trust’s desire to promote visitation experiences and activities within the Park. The proposed multi-day walk is currently undergoing a feasibility study, and the Plan provides the opportunity for any such proposal to be assessed. All such proposals for use and development are required to demonstrate minimal impact upon Park values, and the necessity for having them within the Park eg s 8.5.2.8.


63



137 Cont’d

4 137.9 The clarification of the dual assessment procedures is welcome, however there should be separation between the Trust’s assessment processes and requirements, and those carried out for a LUPAA permit. Suggests the Springs and Pinnacle SAPs should be included as Schedules to reduce confusion.

The Plan attempts to clarify, and delineate, the dual assessment processes; in doing so it necessarily includes more information. The Springs and Pinnacle Special Area Plans are included within the body of the Plan to ensure their status as statutory plans, as the appendices do not form part of the Plan.

No change.

137.10 Recommends Tables 2, 3 & 4 should be reviewed to ensure they are consistent with management approach and zone objectives.

The tables have been reviewed and are considered to be consistent with the management approach and zone objectives.

No change.

12 137.11 The chapter contains good material; however the Plan should be amended to include the need for baseline data and monitored trials to assess impacts upon Park values and existing infrastructure.

The identification of baseline measurements is an essential step in monitoring, and the Plan could make this more explicit. The Plan recommends establishment of monitoring programs for the identified performance indicators; this can be extended to require specific monitoring programs for new uses and developments as required.

Include new heading and associated text in s 12.3 to reference the requirement for ‘Baseline Data’.

Include new s 4.5.10 ‘Monitoring’, and associated text to require that monitoring programs may be established as a condition of consent to monitor performance and consistency with the Management Plan.

138 4 138.1 Opposes any further development of Springs or Pinnacle: impact upon ecology; generation of waste; threats to drinking water; already popular; alternatives in Fern Tree; attractive as is; sense of place.


64



139 2 139.1 Supports Statement of Significance however concerned the Plan does not provide the existing level of protection of the Park’s ‘intangible and fragile qualities’.

Noted. The Plan does however highlight the intangible values through its recognition of the cultural significance of the Park and particularly the role of the Mountain in defining a ‘sense of place’ for Hobartians. It is acknowledged that the Plan places greater emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience, however seeks to do this without adversely impacting upon the Park’s natural and cultural values.

No change.

4 139.2 Opposes cable-car: incompatible with Act and should be specifically prohibited in both Pinnacle and Springs areas; associated structures would be vandalism of Park; already high visitation; opens door to trashing the area; no Government subsidies should be allowed; Trust should require environmental bond.


139.3 Supports development of Springs for longer stay visitation.

Noted and agreed. The Plan notes the Trust’s desire to develop the Springs as a long-stay visitor destination.

No change.

4B 139.4 Suggests Pinnacle Observation shelter be replaced with less visible structure.

Noted. The Plan does not get to the level of detail needed to prescribe removal of the shelter.

No change.

6 139.5 Should include Boneseed as potential weed threat to Park.

Agreed that boneseed could be included given its threat to the Park.

Amend s 5.5.1 to include boneseed.

139.6 Supports removal of telecommunications facilities.

The Plan encourages the rationalisation of all telecommunication facilities.

No change.

9 139.7 Supports investigation of multi-day recreation track.

Noted. No change.

11 139.8 Plan should continue to include five freehold titles enclosed by Park in the Lachlan area.

The five titles were dropped from the Plan given the unlikelihood of the parcels becoming available for inclusion in the Park.

No change.

65



139 Cont’d

13 139.9 Recommends imposition of an entry fee to be acceptable as revenue source.

The issue of an entry fee has not been directly addressed by the Trust, and would require significant consultation with the community. The Trust’s policy on sustainable transport does however address the possibility of charging a fee for access to Pinnacle Road if there is the alternative of a shuttle-bus.

No change.

140 1 140.1 Supports model of management established by Act and purposes of Park.

Noted. No change.

2 140.2 Supports Statement of Significance and management primarily for protection of natural and cultural values.

Noted. No change.

3 140.3 The Plan should note tangible and intangible cultural values in all management zones.

The Plan highlights the Park’s intangible values through the Statement of Significance and associated table in s 2.3. The management objectives for each of the management zones subsequently reference the desire to ‘preserve cultural features and values’ of the zone; this is taken to include the intangible features of cultural significance.

No change.

140.4 Plan should reference nationally accepted standards and policies, as per the TWWHAMP eg Burra Charter, Precautionary principle etc.

It is agreed that the Plan should reference, and management of the Park be guided by, the suggested documents and principles, following the approach of the TWWHAMP.

Insert new section (s 1.3) to reference the guiding principles and documents.

4 140.5 The Plan does not justify the change in permitted development from the existing Plan.

The main change in the Plan is the removal of the prohibition on commercial development at the Pinnacle. This reflects the Trust’s desire to promote visitation experiences and activities within the Park, and to enable assessment of proposals under a performance-based approach, utilising the performance standards provided in chapter 4. It is not considered appropriate to justify this within the Plan itself.

No change.

66



140 Cont’d

4 140.6 Questions whether performance-based approach is suitable for natural areas and assessment of whether a proposal enhances conservation of values.

The performance-based approach provides for proponents to demonstrate compliance with performance standards set by the Plan. The standards seek to cover the full range of natural and cultural values however it is acknowledged that the complexity of the natural system results in a reliance on subjective judgments made under the respective performance criteria. The performance-based approach is however utilised by the State Government in its planning template, and is relevant to the Park given the application of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993.

No change.

140.7 Burra Charter should be explicitly recognised in the assessment tables for cultural heritage management and protection.

Noted. The Plan will be amended to reference the Burra Charter as a guiding document (refer 140.4), and the assessment tables will also be amended to reference the Charter.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 4), S1.6 (Issue 3) and S2.6 (Issue 3) to reference the Burra Charter as a guiding principle.

140.8 Performance measures and criteria in Table 5, Issue 4 (Cultural Heritage) are inadequate, and should include reference to relevant Aboriginal and historic heritage guidelines.

Noted. As written, the performance criteria addresses ‘found’ heritage, and could require proponents to demonstrate adherence to the relevant cultural heritage standards and guidelines.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 4), S1.6 (Issue 3) and S2.6 (Issue 3) to reference relevant Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and Heritage Tasmania standards and guidelines.

4A 140.9 Supports road access to/from Springs and shuttle buses, and supports development of Springs area given its location and historic use.

Noted. The Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy recommends the investigation of shuttle buses, and the Plan notes the Trust’s preference to development visitor facilities and services at the Springs.

No change.

4B 140.10 Opposes cable-car and similar transport options: aesthetic, landscape and sense of place values of Pinnacle and broader Mountain; incompatible with Act and other relevant provisions of the Plan; road provides suitable access.


67



140 Cont’d

4B 140.11 The Plan should be amended to exclude the range of commercial and transport developments at the Pinnacle.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust seeks to provide that proposals that are not prohibited may be assessed against the Plan’s performance standards.

No change.

6 140.12 Supports sections on Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage, and suggests inclusion of action to require conformance with relevant heritage guidelines.

Agreed. As noted in 140.4, 140.7 & 140.8, the Plan will be amended to reflect the relevant Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and Heritage Tasmania standards and guidelines.

Amend ss 6.3.1 & 6.3.2 to require proposals for use and development to assess the impact upon Aboriginal heritage and historic heritage in accordance with Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania and Heritage Tasmania standards and guidelines.

7 140.13 Supports the listed KDOs. Noted. No change.

8 140.14 Does not support development of Pinnacle or the provision of an access corridor through the Recreation Zone.


9 140.15 Access options should complement the Park’s primary purpose as conservation reserve, and not be tourist attractions in their own right.


No change.

10 140.16 Supports the listed policies and actions. Noted. No change.

11 140.17 Supports continued management of Park by the Trust.

Noted. No change.

12 140.18 Supports the monitoring of cultural values as a priority.

Noted. No change.

68



140 Cont’d

13 140.19 Suggests that the Plan should ensure processes relating to assessment of proposals that generate an income for the Trust are transparent.

Concerns over transparency are acknowledged however any commercial proposals for new uses and developments would inevitably require approval from both the Trust and pursuant to the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, thus ensuring a public and transparent process. The Trust may choose to seek community comment on any proposals for use and development, and may also make its findings publicly available. Further, s 4.5.1.5 of the Plan requires that information regarding any Trust or other subsidy be made available to the public.

Amend s 13.5.5 to include a requirement for the Trust to publicly report on any decisions made in relation to development proposals involving private and/or commercial development.

141 2 141.1 Management should provide a balance of the benefits of protection of values and provision of facilities, and should not ‘trade-off’ or diminish ecological and cultural values.


No change.

4, 4A 141.2 Supports Springs development. Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs.

No change.

141.3 Exclude ‘cable-car’ from list of Potential Transport Modes.


4B, 9 141.4 Opposed to cable-car and associated development: incompatible with Act and management objectives of the Plan; visual and noise impacts; protection of natural beauty; clearing of vegetation; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; only allows for ‘passive viewing’; assessment standards are insufficient to protect the Mountain; weather concerns; potential impacts upon sub-surface water flows and drinking water catchments; economic viability; impact of overloading carrying capacity of Pinnacle; reduction in snow days.


69



141 Cont’d

141.5 Supports provision of access options in snow periods, and infrastructure for buses and car-based visitors.

Noted. The Sustainable Transport System endorsed by the Trust (inclusive of shuttle-buses) will require development of improved parking and sheltering arrangements.

6 141.6 Notes that social values are important. Agreed. The social value of the Park is incorporated into the Statement of Significance and informs the management objectives for the Park and the management zones.

No change.

8 141.7 The Plan should not provide for an access corridor through the Recreation Zone.


9 141.8 Mountain bikes should be limited to currently permitted tracks and not be used on walking tracks.


No change.

142 4 142.1 Opposes development of substantial infrastructure outside of the Springs.


142.2 The Plan should require submission of restoration bonds for developments.


4A 142.3 Any development at the Springs should be max one storey.

Provision is made for buildings to be >1 storey in the performance criteria to allow potential for proponents to demonstrate how a proposal does not visually intrude into the local landscape.

No change.

142.4 There should be more active approach to creation of visitor facilities.

The Plan takes an active interest in the development of visitation facilities and experiences, however this requires resourcing from the respective land owning agencies.

No change.

70



142 Cont’d

4B 142.5 Pinnacle is unsuitable for further development and existing telecommunications facilities should be rationalised.

Refer discussion in section 4. The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1).

No change.

11 142.6 Supports listed inclusions, particularly Forestry Tasmania areas in west of Park.

Noted. No change.

143 4 143.1 The Plan should justify the change in permitted levels of development, particularly given the response to the Trust’s Issues Discussion Paper.


No change.

4A 143.2 Supports development of services at Springs: climate; parking; availability of water.

Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs.

No change.

4B 143.3 Opposes cable-car and inappropriate development eg food services: incompatible with management principles and objective; unnecessary for enjoyment of Park’s attractions; Pinnacle Road is sufficient; potential need for public subsidies.


9 143.4 Supports alternative access options in snow periods eg 4wd shuttle-bus.

Noted. The Sustainable Transport System endorsed by the Trust supports investigation of shuttle-buses however short-term provision is unlikely to be financially viable.

No change.

71



144 4A, 4B 144.1 Supports development of Springs. Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs.

No change.

144.2 Opposes cable-car: clearance of vegetation; visual and noise intrusion; uneconomical given weather conditions; not require Government subsidies; safety issues at Pinnacle given weather; Pinnacle Road is adequate.


145 4A, 4B 145.1 Supports development of Springs.


No change.

145.2 Opposes cable-car and associated commercial development: contrary to vision of managing Park for its natural beauty.


146 2 146.1 Supports the Vision and management principles, however notes that ‘use’ is not a value, and care should be taken in using the term.

The Trust recognises some uses of the Park to be ‘values’ in themselves, including visitation uses and experiences and the supply of drinking water. Both of these uses are recognised as reasons for reserving the Park under the Act, and all values identified under the Act are to be protected, preserved and/or provided without adverse impact upon other listed values. Consequently, it is considered unnecessary to further differentiate between uses and values within the Plan.

No change.

146.2 Questions whether KDOs will be useful unless monitoring is carried out with proper intent and resources.

Agreed. The Plan seeks to provide a methodology for monitoring in chapter 12, however acknowledges that monitoring needs to be targeted and within the resources of the management agencies. The intent of monitoring will be to test whether the KDOs have been achieved (s 12.3).

No change.

72



146 Cont’d

3 146.3 Zoning should be ‘values-based’ and be differentiated from ‘uses’ (the exploitation of values).

Boundaries for the management zones remain unchanged from the 2005 Plan (with the exception of the replacement of the Springs and Pinnacle zones). The basis of the zones is essentially ‘values-based’ with subsequent recognition of the various activities and uses that may occur within the respective zones. Boundaries are generally tied to recognisable geographic, topographic or catchment features.

No change.

146.4 Notes that, despite being labelled the Recreation Zone, any tourism activities within the zone (and elsewhere) should be justified.

The naming of the zone does not interfere with the purpose of the various zones to protect zone values. The ‘Recreation’ zone merely recognises that there may be a greater level of use within the zone, subject to the protection and conservation of the area’s natural and cultural values. All uses and developments within the zones must be approved via the Plan’s assessment processes.

No change.

146.5 Opposes any development of mountain bike facilities within the Remote Zone, and notes that the zone has vehicular tracks through it.

The Remote Zone does not contain any vehicle tracks – this is a failing of the map in the Plan which does not clearly identify zone boundaries. The Plan does not allow for new mountain bike tracks, however does allow for the consideration of camping/bunkhouse facilities associated with the proposed multi-day recreation track. Any camping/bunkhouse facilities will necessarily require access tracks from the East-west fire trail.

Amend zone maps to clearly show management zone boundaries.

73



146 Cont’d

3 146.6 Notes that Restricted Areas are unnecessary given natural impacts and have prohibited harmless traditional uses, and restrictions should be limited to certain activities eg dog walking. Notes past use of Silver Falls that is now prohibited.

The Trust considers that the Restricted Areas have been effective both as an educational and regulatory tool in achieving protection of drinking water quality and particularly the areas surrounding water intakes. This is particularly relevant to the Silver Falls area, where the intake is immediately adjacent to the upper Falls, and the smallness of the catchment means it is susceptible to changes in activity.

As noted above (119.2), Trust recognises that there may be suitable approved recreational assets and activities that may be provided within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality; this accords with the management objectives for the zone as provided in s 3.2.2 of the Plan. The Plan prescribes public access to be permitted to some existing tracks within the Restricted Area eg Snake Plains Track, and this could be extended to include other new recreation tracks that are approved in accordance with the Plan.




4 146.7 Notes the need for care to be taken with Specific Area Plans given mixed success of previous developments eg Pinnacle Observation Shelter.

The Springs and Pinnacle special area plans provide added detail to the generic performance standards for assessing use and development. Consequently they are more responsive to the unique needs of the respective areas.

No change.

146.8 Considers that no significant development occur in the Park until there is a greater knowledge and database of natural (particularly geodiversity and geoheritage) and cultural values.

The lack of detailed knowledge of particular Park values is acknowledged, and represents a significant challenge to the Trust. Through the performance standards, the Plan seeks to ensure that any impacts upon Park values are identified, and either avoided or minimised through the requirement of studies and surveys into the identified values.

No change.

74



146 Cont’d

4A 146.9 Supports development of Springs if genuine need, but not at expense of local businesses.

Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs. It is envisaged that the businesses can complement each other, however this is uncertain given the changing nature of the businesses at Fern Tree.

No change.

4B 146.10 Opposed to cable-car: impact upon character of Mountain; sacredness of Mountain and sense of place; high environmental impact.


9 146.11 Concerned over safety and track degradation issues associated with mountain bike use, and the disproportionate influence of bikers over management policy.


No change.

11 146.12 Supports monitoring but notes the need for appropriate resources, commitment and expertise.

Agreed. The Plan notes the need for adequate resourcing, and a focus on simplicity and frequency. Monitoring will be co-ordinated by the Trust but largely be the responsibility of the respective land management agencies.

No change.

147 4A 147.1 Supports development at Springs: better business proposition.


No change.

4B, 9 147.2 Opposed to cable-car and development of Pinnacle: intrusion on natural beauty, solitude and ambiance; sacredness of Mountain; already freely accessible and Road should remain open; Government subsidies and cost of clean-up; extreme weather.


75



148 3, 9 148.1 Notes the size of Restricted Area (Knights Creek) and that bike tracks associated with Big Bend fire trail and Knights Creek track be permitted in this area.

The Trust considers that it is not appropriate to structure the Plan to address the proposed additions to Knights Creek Track in isolation. However, as noted in 119.2 (above), the Plan is proposed to be amended to allow consideration of recreational assets and activities within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality, and for access to these tracks and trails be permitted as far as they relate to the Restricted Area.




149 4A 149.1 Supports Springs development: more appropriate site.


No change.

4B, 9 149.2 Opposed to inappropriate development of Pinnacle (restaurant, cafe etc) and cable-car: incompatible with Act and Management Plan; extension of built environment rather experiencing nature; removal of vegetation; visual and noise impacts; need to keep Pinnacle Road open; lack of Council support; financial burden on community; pitched to tourist market not locals; carrying capacity of Pinnacle.


76



150 4A 150.1 Opposes development of Springs: ‘half-baked solution’.

The Trust considers that the Springs offers the best opportunities for enhancing the visitor experience, given its accessibility, visibility and better climate.

No change.

4B, 9 150.2 Supports cable-car: proposal takes all issues into consideration.


9 150.3 Supports Plan’s greater possibilities for mountain biking.

Noted. The Park provides an extensive network of recreation tracks. Further expansion of the network, particularly in relation to mountain biking, will be considered through implementation of the subsidiary planning strategies.

No change.

151 4A, 4B, 9 151.1 Supports development of Springs and cable-car: greater access.

Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs, with complementary development at the Pinnacle. The Plan does not however prescribe a cable-car, but merely provides for alternative forms of transport to be considered.

No change.

151.2 Supports further expansion of track network.

The Park already provides an extensive network of recreation tracks. Further expansion of the network, particularly in relation to mountain biking, will be considered through implementation of the subsidiary planning strategies.

No change.

152 4A 152.1 Supports development of public facilities at Springs however disagrees that Springs should be ‘primary visitor node’.

Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s preference for development of long-stay facilities at the Springs, with complementary development at the Pinnacle. The plan specifically avoids labelling either as the ‘priority’.

No change.

4B 152.2 Supports greater organisation and planning of Pinnacle area, and supports removal of development restrictions.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust does not seek to limit the possible opportunities within the Pinnacle area, however any proposal will be required to address the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

77



152 Cont’d

4B 152.3 Supports development of cable-car, so long as Trust is heavily involved: supports private investment over public spending; should include public amenities; eliminates need to clear snow from Pinnacle Road; reduces carbon footprint; improve waste management; possibly eliminate power line easement; encourage long stay at summit.


152.4 Negative responses to cable-car should not be used as reason for rejecting the proposal: people who support the proposal are too busy to respond.

Noted. The Trust must address the issues raised in all representations, and is not specifically influenced by the number of representations on any given issue.

No change.

8 152.5 Current facilities are a disgrace: Trust should encourage private investment however notes that development should be conditioned in relation to interpretation and public shelter.

As noted in 152.1, the Trust’s preference is for long-stay facilities to be positioned at the Springs. The Plan however allows for consideration of visitor facilities at the Pinnacle, particularly those relating to visitor interpretation.

No change.

9 152.6 Disagrees with clearance of snow from Pinnacle Road: snow could be left if there was alternative transport.

As it currently stands, access is required to Pinnacle Road for maintenance and emergency purposes, and thus the snow must be cleared where possible. Non-clearance of snow within a 36-hr period can result in icing of the snow, making any further clearance impossible.

No change.

152.7 Considers recreation tracks should be single-use only as shared tracks are ‘stressful’.

The Plan acknowledges the difficulties in providing for multiple-use, particularly from the perspectives of safety and enjoyment. However it is not possible to deliver single-use tracks to fully cater for the growing demand by mountain-bikers, and the Plan provides for the consideration of multiple-use tracks as designated in the Bike Strategy.

No change.

78



152 Cont’d

10 152.8 Notes lack of heritage interpretation at Springs and Pinnacle.

Agreed. The Plan provides for the upgrade of interpretation at both locations.

No change.

12 152.9 The Trust should work with commercial developers to monitor and preserve the Park.

The Trust’s main avenue for monitoring and management is through the respective land owning and managing agencies. The Trust would also work with any private operator to monitor the Park however this is likely to be focused to the operator’s specific interests.

Amend s 12.2 to reference potential to implement monitoring programmes in co-operation with private operators within the Park.

13 152.10 Notes the lack of transparency in selection of Trust members, and queries whether this process can be opened to a public vote.

Members are either designated by the Act or are nominees of the designated person. Any change to this approach will thus require an amendment to the Act. The Trust however includes community representation on working groups and strategic planning projects, as required.

No change.

153 4B, 9 153.1 Generally opposes cable-car: economic viability; need for environmental bond.


154 4B, 9 154.1 Supports sensitive development, including: cable-car (from Glenorchy); restaurant; ice skating rink; recreation tracks; hang-gliding; rock climbing. Developments would: enhance attractiveness and not impact upon intrinsic values; provide revenue; provide greater access for all people.

Refer discussion in section 4. Opportunities for further walking and riding tracks will be outlined in the relevant use strategies. The Trust seeks to ensure that the Plan provides for consideration of a range of recreation and visitor activities and facilities.

No change.

79



155 4B, 9 155.1 Opposed to cable-car: based on optimistic tourist data; poor weather; relative infrequency of snow closures; loves Mountain as it is with all of its recreational attributes; need to maintain access to Pinnacle Road.


156 4B, 9 156.1 Opposed to cable-car: aesthetic and environmental grounds; economically unsound and would require Government funding and closure of Pinnacle Road; need for rehabilitation if project fails; inconsistent with Act.


157 2 157.1 Concerned about ordering of values: must first protect natural values before providing tourism value.

The order of values reflects the ordering in the Act. The ordering is not intended to reflect priority of values, however does reflect the Trust’s intent to focus on the provision of visitation services and facilities in the Plan.

No change.

3 157.2 Concerned about ordering of zones: development should be restricted to Springs area within Recreation Zone, and the Recreation Zone should not be sacrificed to development. Protection of Pinnacle area is important.

The order of zones reflects the Trust’s desire to promote visitor and recreation opportunities in the Park. The ordering is not intended to reflect priority of values, however does reflect the Trust’s intent to focus on the provision of visitation services and facilities in the Plan.

No change.

4 157.3 Notes that there should be no Government support for developments, and developers should fund studies and lodge rehabilitation bonds.

This approach is generally supported, and the Plan has an objective of ensuring the cost of any assessment of private development is borne by the proponent (s 4.2). The Trust cannot however control any contributions made the Government to specific developments. The extent to which the Trust may fund required studies will depend upon the nature and desirability of the proposed development.

No change.

80



157 Cont’d

4A 157.4 Notes that, while the Plan acknowledges ‘carrying capacity’, there is no detail as to how this will be managed or evaluated.

The term is used in relation to access to the Springs, and relates to the ability of an area to withstand impacts resulting from visitation. Such impacts are manifest in a range of ways, including: track degradation; habitat degradation; and reduction in amenity. Such impacts are identified through general maintenance and monitoring programmes, and managed through routine maintenance, or through a change in the use of the particular area.

Amend ss S1.1.4 & S 2.1.4 to remove references to ‘carrying capacity’, and clarify that developments in the Springs and Pinnacle should provide for access that does not cause environmental degradation.

157.5 Supports development of visitor centre but does not support inclusion of cable-car etc in Potential Transport Modes: impact upon natural values.

Noted. The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs. The inclusion of Potential Transport Modes allows for the consideration of any proposals, subject to the relevant performance standards.

No change.

157.6 Unclear as to intent of A7.2 in Table S1.6, and which party pays for road upgrades associated with any development.

The Acceptable Solution (A7.2) provides for situations where no upgrades to existing roads are required. However the associated Performance Criteria (P7.2) provides for a contribution to be negotiated with the proponent should an upgrade to existing roads be required.

No change.

4B 157.7 Opposes cable- car and major development: local and broader visual intrusion; noise; rubbish; ticket price; rehabilitation if project fails; weather conditions.


157.8 Supports low-key interpretation facility at Pinnacle.

The improvement of interpretation at the Pinnacle is considered a priority. In the short term, it is proposed to upgrade the existing Observation Shelter with improved amenities and interpretation.

No change.

81



157 Cont’d

5 157.9 Notes that natural values need a ‘continuous environment’ to thrive as opposed to subdivision of Park into smaller use areas.

Noted. The purpose for reserving the Park is premised on a regional approach to management of natural values. While permitted use varies between management zones, management of the respective areas continues irrespective of management zone boundaries.

No change.

8 157.10 Supports development of visitor centre at Springs.

Noted. The Springs is the listed as the preferred location for a visitor centre and associated interpretation and activities.

No change.

9 157.11 Notes that the Mountain is accessible all year-round and supports shuttle-bus access.

Noted. The investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus service is supported by the Trust.

No change.

Other 157.12 Suggests there should be at least two public representatives on the Trust.

The constitution of the Trust is provided by the Act. Community representation is via aldermanic representatives from the Glenorchy and Hobart City Councils, and also by representation on various working groups.

No change.

158 General 158.1 Notes the increased use of visitor and tourism terms in Plan compared to previous Plan.

Noted. The Plan places greater emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience, however seeks to do this without adversely impacting upon the Park’s natural and cultural values.

No change.

2 158.2 Notes need to fully explore the meaning of the objectives relating to visitation (s 2.5.2).

The objectives reflect the Trust’s emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience, while protecting and conserving the natural and cultural values of the Park.

No change.

3 158.3 Management objective relating to Pinnacle area (s 3.3.2) should specifically reference access to the Pinnacle Specific Area.

The objective references the provision of tourism and recreation activities, which inherently involves access, thus it is not considered necessary to specifically reference ‘access’.

No change.

82



158 Cont’d

4 158.4 Considers it to be beyond the scope of the Plan to require that development assessment costs be borne by a developer (s 4.2).

The Plan seeks to ensure that the Trust is not responsible for costs which should be the responsibility of a proponent or other entity. These may include the preparation of documentation eg surveys, however may also include elements of any assessment.

Amend s 4.2 pt 2 to clarify that the Trust should not be responsible for costs associated with documentation and assessment of proposals resulting from private investment.

158.5 Considers it a deterrent to developers that Trust can enforce compliance with strategies/guidelines not listed in Plan (s 4.5.2.8 pt 7)

The clause is intended to provide flexibility for the Trust to consider development standards and guidelines, and planning strategies that are prepared and endorsed by the Trust subsequent to the making of the Plan; to do otherwise is to lock the Trust into strategies that may be obsolete. The clause also recognises that the Park is a public asset, managed on behalf of the broader community, and does not have an effect on private development rights. It is necessary for proponents to contact the Trust before preparing a proposal to determine whether new strategies and policies have been endorsed.

No change.

4A 158.6 Queries definition of ‘residential hotel’ and whether it provides for an eco-lodge.

In reviewing this issue, the Trust considers that ‘residential hotel’ is unsuitable as an example of accommodation to be permitted at the Springs. The types of accommodation that the Trust considers suitable for the Park includes holiday and/or lodge-style cabins, and walkers’ bunkhouses/cabins.

Amend Use tables (Table 3 & Table S1.5) to provide for Visitor Accommodation to be only for: holiday cabins and/or lodge-style complex; walkers’ bunkhouses and/or cabins.

158.7 Objects to A10.1 (Table S1.6) if it prevents any proposal proposed for the old hotel site from meeting the solution.

The Acceptable Solution can be theoretically achieved, however any proposal that cannot meet the Solution can be assessed under the relevant Performance Criteria.

No change.

83



158 Cont’d

4B 158.8 Supports the Plan’s listing of commercial activities in Pinnacle as Discretionary.

Noted. No change.

158.9 Considers that the performance criteria for landscape protection (Table S2.6, Issue 5) must not treat the status quo as the only acceptable outcome.

The criteria require that a proponent must demonstrate how the proposal avoids or remedies loss of visual values; this is fundamental given the importance and visibility of the Park’s landscape. This necessarily invites consideration of the status quo, however does not prevent change. The proponent may also prepare a Visual Impact Analysis that objectively considers the impact of any proposal.

Amend ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 5, P5.1) to clarify that any visual intrusions must be demonstrated to minimise or remedy any adverse impacts on the visual character of the area.

158.10 Suggests that the lack of an Acceptable Solution in Table S2.6 Issue 10 complicates developers’ decision-making regarding nature and type of building.

The sensitivity and high visibility of the Pinnacle area results in it being impossible to clearly delineate areas of developable land for buildings under the Acceptable Solution. Thus all proposals for buildings are required to demonstrate compliance with the Performance Criteria.

No change.

8 158.11 Strongly supports (as a high priority) development of a Visitation Strategy as recommended in Plan.

Noted and agreed. The strategy will assist in determining the needs and desired facilities by visitors to the Park. The preparation of an action plan will be undertaken separately to the Plan.

No change.

158.12 Notes the need for development of infrastructure to support commercial and recreation activities.

The Plan highlights the need for better visitor services and facilities, and has provided for consideration of such proposals. The Trust works closely with land management agencies to develop area plans and strategies that guide development of facilities.

No change.

84



158 Cont’d

8 158.13 Development at the Springs should be informed by the Visitation Strategy. The current approved development at the Springs may result in a lost opportunity to incorporate accommodation and customer-focused facilities.

It is agreed that the Visitation Strategy should inform the future development of all services and facilities, including the Springs. It is also acknowledged that the current proposal does not have an accommodation component, however this proposal is approved and may be implemented without reference to the Visitation Strategy. The Trust supports the development of the current proposal given it provides a basis for the delivery of visitor opportunities.

No change.

158.14 Strongly supports implementation of ss 8.5.1.1–8.5.1.3, in cooperation with Destination Southern Tasmania and proponents.

Noted. The Trust will engage with relevant industry and community groups in preparing the Visitation Strategy and in marketing the Park.

No change.

158.15 Suggests s 8.5.2.8 is counter-intuitive and limiting in requiring tourism proposals to demonstrate ‘community need’ and that tourism developments will generate ‘increased management resources’.

The action is a necessary limiter on development, given the Park is reserved for numerous conservation purposes, along with its visitation purposes. Proposals should demonstrate an existing or potential need to ensure facilities are not left without a sustainable user base.

No change.

9 158.16 Supports inclusion of Potential Transport Modes in Plan, particularly in context of broader benefits to the Tasmanian economy and community.

Noted. No change.

158.17 Queries the Plan’s reference to community disapproval for commercial tourism-based helicopter operations (s 9.3.1), and suggests that this issue be included in any research carried out for the recommended Visitation Strategy.

The Trust’s research is based upon responses to the Issues Discussion Paper released prior to the Plan, which indicated strong opposition to the provision of a heli-pad for commercial use. The issue can however be included in the review of opportunities as part of the preparation of a Visitation Strategy.

No change.

158.18 Concerned at the Trust’s inability to fund marketing of ‘saleable products’ such as high quality mountain biking.

The Trust has limited resources however works closely with land management and government agencies to market and promote visitation to the Park.

No change.

85



158 Cont’d

9 158.19 Considers the proposed multi-day recreation track to be a ‘pipe dream’ and funding could be better used to investigate other uses of Mountain.

Noted. The Trust has undertaken a feasibility study of the track on behalf of the State and Commonwealth Governments, and has provided for associated infrastructure to be considered should the concept be put forward as a proposal.

No change.

10 158.20 Supports undertaking high quality visitation research, and notes possibility of sourcing funding.

Noted. The Trust will investigate options for carrying out the research with relevant stakeholders.

No change.

158.21 Queries the Plan’s reference to, and reliance on, the Trust’s Visitor Research and Monitoring Programme and Audit (s 10.4.8).

The document audits existing known research and provides a framework for carrying out future visitor research. It is not possible to include all relevant documents in the Plan, and thus reference must be made to external documents.

Amend s 10.4.8 to reference key recommendations of the Visitor Research and Monitoring Programme and Audit.

13 158.22 Concerned that the lack of commercial activity and resultant revenue, and a general ‘lack of internal enthusiasm’, has resulted the Trust being unable to implement the previous Management Plan. Encourages the Trust to take leadership role on sustainable development of tourism-related experiences.

Noted. The Trust is limited by its resource capabilities however has achieved considerable success in coordinating management of the Park. It is agreed that development and facilities can provide a revenue source for the Trust, and this is provided by the Plan, however it is crucial that this be led by the principles and objectives of the Plan, not the mere desire to increase revenue.

No change.

159 4B 159.1 Opposes commercial development in Pinnacle: unnecessary as already sufficient infrastructure; biodiversity and aesthetic values.


6 159.2 Bush fire recommendations should specifically require mapping of wildfire boundaries, and fire histories.

The Plan (s 6.2.1.5) requires the Trust to maintain a database of the ‘occurrence and effects of bush fires’. Separately, the Plan delegates management actions to the Trust’s Fire Management Strategy; the strategy includes a requirement to keep records of all wild fires and controlled burns that occur in the Park.

No change.

86



159 Cont’d

6 159.3 The Plan should require Trust to lodge biodiversity data with the Natural Values Atlas (NVA).

The Plan does not contain detail to this level. As good land management policy, the Trust submits flora and fauna data to the NVA as it becomes available.

Amend s 6.2.3.7 to note the requirement to share all relevant data with the NVA.

159.4 The Introduced Species Strategy should be completed as a high priority and acknowledge work of Bushcare volunteers.

Noted. A priority of actions will be completed separately to the Plan. While the Plan recommends continued support for landcare groups (s 6.2.4.7) The significant contribution of community volunteers needs to be acknowledged.

Amend ss 5.5.1 & 6.2.4 to acknowledge the management contributions of volunteers in weed management.

9 159.5 The Bike Strategy and bike master plan should be implemented as a priority.

The relevant sections of the master plan have been adopted into the Trust’s Bike Strategy, and will be considered in accordance with the resources of the responsible land management agencies.

No change.

12 159.6 Notes various text edits. Noted. Amend text as required.

160 4, 4A, 4B, 5, 6

160.1 Supports development of visitor centre, restaurant etc at Springs.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan notes the Trust’s preference for long-stay development at the Springs.

No change.

160.2 Opposes cable-car and commercial development of Pinnacle: impact on landscape, ecological and landscape values.


9 160.3 Access to Pinnacle Road must be maintained.


161 4B, 9 161.1 Opposed to cable-car, food services and retail at Pinnacle: litter; offensive and degrading; expensive; compete with other businesses; closure of Pinnacle Road; visual intrusion; sacred area for family; off-shore profit-making; incompatibility with Act.


87



161 Cont’d

4B, 9 161.2 Queries why the Trust has extended the boundary of the existing Pinnacle Zone to that shown in the Plan, and recommends that Plan revert to existing boundary.



161.3 Supports sensitive upgrade of existing Observation Shelter, and removal of telecommunications towers.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1). The Observation Shelter will be upgraded by the Hobart City Council in the near future.

No change.

162 3 162.1 Supports use of zones and restrictions on further track development on eastern side of Mountain.

Noted. However the Plan seeks to provide for the investigation of further recreation facilities in accordance with relevant use strategies.

No change.

4, 4A, 4B 162.2 Supports current development plan for Springs.

Noted. No change.

162.3 Opposes cable-car and any further development of Pinnacle, however notes slippery conditions and need to not encourage tourist access in harsh conditions.


9 162.4 Opposes mechanised vehicle and horse access.

Noted. However the Trust seeks to provide for multiple-use of the Park, and the Plan provides for selected remote trails where recreational four-wheel driving and horse riding (by permit) are allowed.

No change.

88



162 Cont’d

9 162.5 Supports retention of snow on Pinnacle Road for ‘a few days’ for recreation use, and supports snow motorised transport to Pinnacle.

As it currently stands, access is required to Pinnacle Road for maintenance and emergency purposes, and thus the snow must be cleared where possible. Non-clearance of snow within a 36-hr period can result in icing of the snow, making any further clearance impossible.

No change.

163 4, 4B 163.1 Opposed to cable-car and any closure of Pinnacle Road: Road provides low cost and equitable access; visual detraction; users of cable-car will be ‘cosseted and passive’ and have no engagement with Mountain; impact upon Fern Tree businesses; no demonstrated community need and creates ‘commercial monopoly’ for ‘private profit’ in contradiction to objectives of Pinnacle Specific Area Plan; overloading of Pinnacle during snow events; focuses on short term gain at expense of long term interests of community.


163.2 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle: water supply (subsurface) issues for Fern Tree resulting from footprint, use and unknown contaminants; against Plan objectives.


8 163.3 Trust should encourage commercial relationship between Springs development and Fern Tree: cable-car bypasses this. Notes that Fern Tree should be primary visitor information site.


163.4 Supports the Plan’s requirement that development not occur until ‘demonstrated community need’ (s 8.5.2.8).

Noted. This is a general requirement that places the onus on proponents to demonstrate a need for the development.

No change.

89



164 2 164.1 Notes the Plan’s recognition of ‘place’ and special character of the Mountain, and the importance of visitors engaging with Mountain’s natural values.

Noted. No change.

4 164.2 Suggests that Plan should define ‘inappropriate development’ as formal criteria are unable to capture ‘public good’ of the Park.

The Plan seeks to provide for the consideration of visitor facilities and services, subject to assessment against the performance standards. Consequently the Plan does not prescribe ‘inappropriate development’ as this would limit this approach.

No change.

4A 164.3 Supports development of Springs as the major visitor node: easy access; shelter; views; terrain.


4B 164.4 Opposes cable-car: visual and landscape detraction; users of cable-car will be ‘cosseted and passive’ and have no engagement with Mountain; Road provides low cost and equitable access; violates development criteria listed in Plan; no demonstrated community need and creates ‘commercial monopoly’ for ‘private profit’ in contradiction to Plan’s objectives; overloading of Pinnacle during snow events; focuses on short term gain at expense of long term interests of community; water supply (subsurface) issues for Fern Tree resulting from footprint, use and unknown contaminants. Also opposes provision of ‘access corridor’ to Pinnacle.


164.5 Supports low-key upgrade of existing facilities.

Noted. The Plan recommends that future development be predicated upon demonstration of a community need (s 8.5.2.8). However it is noted that the Trust seeks to ensure that the Plan will allow the consideration of further visitor facilities and services.

No change.

90



164 Cont’d

4B 164.6 Supports Plan’s list of development criteria for Pinnacle area.

Noted. The criteria serves to ensure proposals are assessed in relation to potential impacts upon Park values.

No change



165.2 Queries why the Trust has extended the boundary of the existing Pinnacle Zone to that shown in the Plan, and recommends that Plan revert to existing boundary.





No change.

166 4B, 9 166.1 Opposed to cable-car: conflicts with Act; clearance of vegetation; destruction of geological features; fire management; visual and noise pollution; replicates Springs development; lower property value; clash with other commercial and non-commercial users; desecrate wild environment; duty to future generations.


91



167 4A, 4B 167.1 Supports Springs development. Noted. No change.

167.2 Opposes cable-car: undeveloped beauty; closure of Pinnacle Road.


9 167.3 Bikes should be permitted to track from Fern Tree Park – Pillinger Drive.

Noted. This action is addressed in the Trust’s Bike Strategy.

No change.

10 167.4 There should be an interpretive botanical trail leading from the Springs.

Noted. This action is addressed in the Trust’s Interpretation Plan for the Springs area.

No change.

168 2 168.1 Strongly supports the Plan’s protection of intrinsic worth of Park’s natural values.

Noted. No change.

4A, 4B 168.2 Supports development of Springs for interpretation and visitor facilities.

Agreed. The Plan recommends the development of such facilities at the Springs.

No change.

168.3 Opposed to cable-car: visual and experiential intrusion; ‘majesty of the spectacle’; Pinnacle Road must remain open.


9 168.4 Supports shuttle-bus during snow periods or for general access.

Noted. Provision of a shuttle-bus during snow periods is problematic given limited demand, however the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system.

No change.

Other 168.5 The Trust should not seek to ‘modify’ the Mountain or to make access always ‘comfortable’.

The Trust seeks to provide for a range of access opportunities for all of the community. It is considered that this does not detract from the experience of those seeking a more independent access option.

No change.

92



169 4A, 4B 169.1 Supports non-intrusive development at Springs.

Noted. The Plan supports the development of such facilities at the Springs.

No change.

169.2 Opposes cable-car: ‘violate everything of value’; not economically viable.


169.3 Supports replacement of ‘current eyesores’ at Pinnacle: interpretation; limited catering.


No change.

170 1, 2 170.1 Supports development of Park for recreation and tourism purposes.

Noted. The Plan seeks to promote the establishment of visitor and recreation facilities and services.

No change.

4A 170.2 Supports development of public amenities at Springs but otherwise too limiting, and should be focussed on the Pinnacle.

The Plan expresses the Trust’s support for development at the Springs, with complementary development at the Pinnacle.

No change.

4B 170.3 Notes that Pinnacle offers more for visitors than it currently does, and is under-managed.

The Plan seeks to provide opportunities for further development of visitor facilities at the Pinnacle. The Plan however notes that the Pinnacle should be continued to be managed for short-stay visitation.

No change.

170.4 Supports removal of prohibition on commercial development to allow assessment of proposals and contribution by private enterprise (subject to working with the Trust).

Noted. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

170.5 Supports cable-car: benefits objectives of management; remove traffic from road (which is struggling to handle current use); benefit Tasmania tourism eg bike tourism; does not impact upon Park values; improvements in technology; reduce carbon footprint; improve waste management; replace powerline easement; increase duration of visitor stay.


93



170 Cont’d

5 170.6 Notes concern over introduction of weeds via walkers, and suggests cleaning stations at key entry points.

Weed introduction by walkers is considered low risk given a majority of walkers come from urban environments. Walkers using remote areas may have greater potential for carrying mud with seed, however the undisturbed nature of the Park discourages weed colonisation.

No change.

9 170.7 Supports recent development of bike-friendly trails, and suggests more trails should be developed eg Pinnacle-Chalet-Junction Cabin.

Further development of mountain bike trails will be in accordance with the Trust’s Bike Strategy, recently amended to include the relevant sections of the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan. A new trails linking the Chalet to Junction Cabin is currently being investigated.

No change.

170.8 Concerned over safety issues of multiple-use tracks: each user group should have its own trails.

Noted. The Plan notes the requirement for the Trust to consider environmental and cultural impacts (including risk management) of any change of existing walking tracks to multiple-use. Further bike-only tracks are under consideration, however it is impractical to build an entire new bike-only network, and thus multiple-use will be considered where possible, in accordance with the Bike Strategy.

No change.

10 170.9 Current interpretation is ‘embarrassing’. Noted. The Plan seeks to address the current lack of interpretation through a dedicated chapter (chapter 10). An upgrade of the interpretation at the Pinnacle Observation Shelter is currently under consideration by the Hobart City Council.

No change.

13 170.10 Is interested in information on how Trust members are selected, and members’ ‘political and personal persuasions’.


No change.

94



170 Cont’d

Other 170.11 Notes that Trust has taken on board comments submitted in earlier consultation.

Noted. No change.

170.12 Notes personal history of walking on Mountain. Believes that cable-car reinforces Tasmania as a ‘clean and green destination’ and Mountain should ‘enter a new chapter in its life’.

Noted. The Trust is seeking to ensure the Plan provides opportunities for development of visitor services and facilities, and the promotion of the Park to a greater visitation. Refer section 4 for further discussion on a cable-car.

No change.

171 9 171.1 Implores Trust to maintain ‘free and open access’ to Pinnacle Road.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan recommends the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which seeks to maintain public access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

172 4A 172.1 Supports approved Springs development. Noted. No change.

4B, 9 172.2 Opposed to cable-car: destroy Mountain’s natural qualities; reduce access for locals; privatisation of public asset; unviable; Pinnacle Road provides enough access.


172.3 Supports sale of coffee from existing Observation Shelter.

The Plan provides for commercial activities to be considered at the Pinnacle. The provision of coffee sales in the Observation Shelter is however problematic given the limitations of that building.

No change.

172.4 Supports all-weather vehicles during snow periods.

The Plan recommends continuation of the existing snow clearance policy, based upon the desire to open the road to public and maintenance access as early as possible. The viability of a shuttle service during the periods is problematic given safety issues, the low availability of vehicles, and the short notice of snow events.

No change.

95



172 Cont’d

9 172.5 Supports the development of more mountain-bike tracks, and the proposed multi-day recreation track.

Noted. Further development of mountain bike trails will be in accordance with the Trust’s Bike Strategy, recently amended to include the relevant sections of the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan. The multi-day recreation track is currently being assessed as to its viability.

No change.

173 2 173.1 Suggests the inclusion of a management objective relating to impact of development on Park neighbours.

The objectives relate to management outcomes for the Park itself, including the provision of visitor opportunities and experiences. It is acknowledged that some developments may have potential to impact upon Park neighbours, however the performance standards contained in the Plan provide for consideration of such impacts eg visual and noise impacts; and infrastructure provision (road upgrades: chapter 4A, s S1.6, Issue7).

No change.

4 173.2 Suggests assessment should include liability to community of failed commercial developments, and Plan should include requirement for environmental bond.

The assessment process requires the submission of a business plan demonstrating economic viability of any commercial developments (s 4.5.1.4). Refer section 4 of this report for discussion on environmental bonds.

No change.

96



173 Cont’d

173.3 Suggests Issue 7 (Table 5) should address road access and safety issues for neighbouring communities eg bikes, nature of vehicles using Pinnacle Road.

The issue is more likely to arise with any development undertaken in the Springs or Pinnacle special areas, given prohibitions on such development outside of those areas; consequently should be addressed in chapters 4A & 4B. However the Acceptable Solution in Issue 7 (Table 5) relates to the capacity of the road, and will be assessed in accordance with the relevant Austroad standard. It is noted that the Acceptable Solution should be quantifiable, and thus the wording ‘and be adequate for any likely increase in traffic’ should be removed. The Performance Criteria captures the safety issues raised in the representation.

The upgrade of roads servicing new developments in the Springs and Pinnacle is required by the Plan (ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 7(a), A7.2/P7.2). However the Performance Criteria does not specifically take into account access and safety issues for Park neighbours or other users of Pinnacle Road. It is reasonable to require that any changes brought about by new development should consider these issues.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 6, A7.1), Acceptable Solution to delete reference to ‘and be adequate for any likely increase in traffic’.

Amend ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 7(a), P7.2) to include that, where a development is shown to require the upgrade of access roads to the Springs and/or Pinnacle, the proponent will avoid or minimise any adverse impacts upon existing road access, and public use and safety.

173.4 Suggests assessment should consider impacts of development of public land on adjoining commercial operations eg Fern Tree.

The Plan focuses on the improvement of the Park for visitor services and facilities, particularly the delivery of visitor interpretation at the Springs. This can be complementary to services offered by adjoining businesses, however is considered to be best offered within the Park.

No change.

97



173 Cont’d

4A, 4B 173.5 Concerned that any development promoting night-time use of Pinnacle Road creates safety issues and problems for Park neighbours. Notes Pillinger Drive is categorised for ‘quiet amenity’ under HCC planning scheme.

It is agreed that development of major visitor facilities within the Park has the potential to increase night-time use of Pinnacle Road. However it is considered that Pinnacle Road has the capability to sustain such use, with adequate signs and road markings, and subject to the prescribed speed limits. The statement of future desired character of ‘quiet amenity’ as prescribed in the Council’s planning scheme can only relate to the location of the development itself, not to potential impacts on roads leading to the development. As per 173.3 (above), the Performance Criteria does not specifically take into account access and safety issues for Park neighbours or other users of Pinnacle Road.

Amend ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 7(a), P7.2) to include that, where a development is shown to require the upgrade of access roads to the Springs and/or Pinnacle, the proponent will avoid or minimise any adverse impacts upon existing road access, and public use and safety.

173.6 Suggests use of unused infrastructure at Pinnacle in lieu of new development.

There is no existing infrastructure at the Pinnacle that is not in use for public or private purposes.

No change.

6 173.7 Suggests the Plan should note the increased incidence of hooning on Pinnacle Road.

Agreed. Amend ss 5.7 & 6.4.1 to note the incidence of hooning on Pinnacle Road.

8 173.8 Considers that Fern Tree and Neika are key entry points and should have more visitor infrastructure.

It is agreed that Fern Tree is a key entry point, with Neika playing a lower level role. While the Plan focuses on the Springs and Pinnacle as the two most important destinations, further infrastructure is required at other key entry points to maximise visitor experiences.

Include new action in s 8.5.6 recommending that a master plan be prepared for the Fern Tree area, considering development of visitor facilities in keeping with the area’s natural and cultural values.

9 173.9 Considers that the road closure signs on Huon Road and Pillinger Drive could be better located.

As an operational issue, this can be considered outside of the statutory Plan.

No change.

98



173 Cont’d

9 173.10 Suggests that weight limits be placed on vehicles using Pillinger Drive and Pinnacle Road and supports a charge to use Pinnacle Road.

Any limitation on operational weights can be considered by the Hobart City Council as on-ground manager of the road, and outside of the statutory Plan. The Trust has no immediate plans to charge a use fee for Pinnacle Road.

No change.

173.11 Suggests that s 9.4 should include objective regarding safety of visitors and neighbouring residents.

It is noted that the KDOs in s 9.1 do not reference visitor safety.

Amend s 9.4 to reference visitor safety as a Key Desired Outcome for management of recreation in the Park.

12 173.12 Suggests the inclusion of monitoring of traffic and visitation at different entry points.

Monitoring is carried out by management agencies at various locations throughout the Park, including Pinnacle Road and numerous recreation tracks. The Plan sets the framework for monitoring, and notes the need to collect more visitation data.

No change.

174 4B, 9 174.1 Opposed to cable-car, food services and retail at Pinnacle: litter; offensive and degrading; Mountain should be enjoyed by locals.


174.2 Supports continued prohibition of accommodation and camping at Pinnacle.

Noted. Accommodation and camping is not compatible with the values of the Pinnacle area.

No change.

175 4B, 9 175.1 Opposed to cable-car and any development on Pinnacle: visual impact and sense of place; vegetation clearing; noise; importance to indigenous community; access by Pinnacle Road; incompatible with Act; duplicates Springs development; should be limited to ‘passive commercial use’.


99



175 Cont’d

4B, 9 175.2 Supports all-weather shuttle-bus. The Plan recommends continuation of the existing snow clearance policy, based upon the desire to open the road to public and maintenance access as early as possible. The viability of a shuttle service during the periods is problematic given safety issues, the low availability of vehicles, and the short notice of snow events.

No change.

176 4B, 9 176.1 Opposed to cable-car: act of vandalism; contrary to Act; need for Government subsidies; weather and safety.









No change.

100



178 2 178.1 Strongly endorses the Plan’s statements regarding, and basis on, the values of the Park, and quotes other written material. However notes Plan detracts from this approach by allowing commercial development on Pinnacle.

Support noted. The Trust seeks to enable the consideration of commercial development at the Pinnacle, in accordance with the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

4B, 9 178.2 Opposed to cable-car and commercial development at Pinnacle: obtrusive; already readily accessible; visual and experiential impacts; unnecessary for snow access, and snow unpredictable and short-lived; weather conditions are often inhospitable; Pinnacle is not ‘already trashed’; concerns about public subsidies; Mountain requires respect and defence.


4B, 9 178.3 Supports continued growth of existing commercial operations on Mountain.

Noted. The Plan makes consideration of further growth possible, subject to the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

178.4 Supports removal of WIN telecommunications tower.


No change.

8 178.5 Supports development of Springs for visitor services and facilities.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the development of the Springs as the long-stay visitor node within the Park.

No change.

9 178.6 Supports provision of 4wd access by Council in snow periods.

The Plan recommends continuation of the existing snow clearance policy, based upon the desire to open the road to public and maintenance access as early as possible. The viability of a shuttle service during the periods is problematic given safety issues, the low availability of vehicles, and the short notice of snow events.

No change.

101



179 4 179.1 Notes assumption the Plan is seeking to accommodate needs of electricity entity, however has concerns over clarity of exemptions for low impact activities. Suggests incorporating an Electricity Entity Operations Plan as an appendix to the Plan.

It is the Trust’s intent that routine and recurring maintenance activities that require a PAA can be covered by a single approval which allows the maintenance to be carried out without the need for further approval. Operations plans for Transend and other utilities can be approved through the normal permit process: they do not need to be appended to the Plan

Amend Appendix 3A to clarify that a single permit can be issued for recurring maintenance works.

180 4B, 9 180.1 Supports cable-car: promotes Tasmania’s natural beauty and sustainable development.


181 4B, 9 181.1 Supports cable-car: improve tourism; encourage recreation access; decrease carbon footprint.


182 3 182.1 Supports zoning as outlined in Plan, with particular reference to maintenance of natural vista from Channel region.

Noted. Preservation of landscape values is an important part of the Act and the Plan.

No change.

182.2 Notes concern over use of ‘generally’ in first objective of Natural Zone; suggests similar wording to Remote Zone with addition of: ‘except for necessary minimal disturbance associated with approved recreational use’.

It is agreed that the introduction of ‘generally’ to the zone objective may create uncertainty, particularly given the subjective nature of the objective ie ‘preserve the relatively undisturbed condition ...’. This could be rectified by the addition of the suggested text.

Amend s 3.2.3, point 1 to: preserve the zone in an undisturbed condition, except for necessary disturbance associated with approved uses and developments.

5 182.3 Supports Plan’s recommendation of an Introduced Species Strategy, and notes willingness to participate in the development of the strategy.

Noted. No change.

4 182.4 Supports the permitted uses and developments as listed in Table 3 of Plan.

Noted. No change.

102



182 Cont’d

7 182.5 Expresses concern at impact of water extraction from North West Bay River on environmental values, and the need to finalise the draft Wellington Park Drinking Water Catchment Management Strategy (2009).

The Trust recognises the need to maximise environmental flows however also recognises Southern Water’s right to extract water for drinking water purposes. The finalisation of the drinking water catchment strategy (as recommended in the Plan) is a key component in achieving a balance between extraction and environmental flows.

No change.

13 182.6 Suggests amendment of s 13.5.6 to reference exercise of statutory powers by Councils ‘within their respective municipal areas’.

The reference to ‘Councils represented on the Trust’ acknowledges that only those Councils have land management roles within the Park. However Councils with sections of the Park within their municipal area may be required to exercise powers outside of the standard land manager role.

Amend s 13.5.6 to provide that Councils with sections of the Park within their municipality may also exercise their statutory powers.

183 4A, 4B 183.1 Any development of the Springs should consider impact upon ‘aural experience’.

The Plan has performance standards which consider the level of noise from any new uses or developments.

No change.

183.2 Opposed to further development of Pinnacle, and encourages removal of redundant infrastructure.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan encourages the long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities (s 6.4.3.1).

No change.

9 183.3 Notes access should be freely available and without charge, and there should be ‘no privileged usage by invested interests’.

The Trust has no immediate plans to charge an access fee to the Park, or for Pinnacle Road. However the Plan does provide for consideration of private development within the Park, which may itself require use fees. Further discussion is in section 4.

No change.

13 183.4 Considers community representation on Trust is essential.


No change.

184 4B, 9 184.1 Opposed to cable-car. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

103



185 4A 185.1 Supports small development of Springs at old Hotel site.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs.

No change.

4B, 9 185.2 Opposed to cable-car and commercial development: not a resource to be exploited; keep in natural state for future generations; need for public subsidies; concern about potential for road closure


186 4B, 9 186.1 Opposed to cable-car: natural beauty. Refer discussion in section 4. No change.

187 General 187.1 Notes: historical importance and physical nature (‘wildness’) of the Mountain; usefulness of existing infrastructure and management approach; need to ‘tread lightly and to encourage awareness of values.

The comments are noted and supported, in terms of the need to maintain the Park’s values. There is no change to the management framework, however the Plan takes a more proactive approach to the consideration of new uses and developments.

No change.

4, 4B, 9 187.2 Opposed to cable-car: costly to build and expensive to use, and unviable; visually destructive; unsafe on extreme days.


187.3 Opposed to commercial outlets at Pinnacle: financially tenuous; litter; waste management; power supplies; Springs is better alternative.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs.

No change.

9 187.4 Supports incentives for ‘group transport’ from Springs: reduces road use and need for parking.

The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs, and it is envisaged that further transport opportunities would be considered in light of such a development. However the Plan also supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system.

No change.

104



187 Cont’d

9 187.5 Supports greater vehicle access in snow conditions: more snow ploughing; education, and consideration of ‘practice ski-run’ near Big Bend, subject to snow reliability.

Noted. Provision of vehicle access during snow periods is problematic given the uncertainties of driver ability and the need to continue snow clearing operations. The Trust works closely with the Hobart City Council to distribute information regarding road closures. The establishment of snow recreation areas is problematic given the unpredictability of snowfalls.

No change.

187.6 Supports better information and interpretation signs for recreation tracks.

Noted. The Plan emphasises the need for improved interpretation within the Park, based upon a Park-wide Interpretation Strategy.

No change.

188 4B, 9 188.1Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


189 4B, 9 189.1 Opposed to cable-car: ‘environmental and cultural heritage disaster’; wilderness is major tourism drawcard.


189.2 Supports transport on Pinnacle Road by public system during road closures.


No change.

190 4A, 4B 190.1 Believes commercial development should not be permitted on Mountain based upon responses to earlier consultation.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust has considered all of the responses, however has made a policy decision to allow consideration of further commercial opportunities at both the Springs and the Pinnacle.

No change.

105



190 Cont’d

6 190.2 Supports re-naming of Mountain to Kunanyi.

Noted. The action in the Plan references the dual naming of the broader Park. Any investigation of dual naming would be in accordance with the State Government’s Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy (released (March 2013).



9 190.3 Requests availability of more challenging on-lead dog walking tracks eg Cathedral Rock, and trial of off-lead area.

The Trust considers the proposed on-lead access to achieve a balance for those desiring dog access and those seeking an experience without dogs, and the need to ensure protection of natural values. The provision of off-lead areas has been rejected given the difficulty of creating exclusive areas and the potential impact upon Park values and visitors.

No change.

191 4B, 9 191.1 Opposed to cable-car: already too much infrastructure; diminish inherent value of Park.


192 4B, 9 192.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; sense of place; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road and existing commercial operators; negative impacts upon recreation; damage to ecosystems; weed invasion to disturbed areas.


193 4B, 9 193.1 Opposed to cable-car: unobstructed view and relatively unspoilt wilderness; expensive and public subsidies; accessibility via Pinnacle Road.


194 1 194.1 Unsure as to purpose of the Plan: needs contextual/relationship diagram.

Noted and agreed. The broader planning framework could be further articulated, including: the specific role of the Plan; and the role of subsidiary planning strategies, including the monitoring processes.

Add a new s 1.2.1 to cover the structure of the Trust’s planning framework, including the role of the subsidiary strategies and the duration of the Plan itself.

106



194 Cont’d

3 194.2 Zoning map requires better delineation of Natural Zone.

Noted. The maps will be improved in the final Plan. Provide maps with better delineation between management zones.

4 194.3 The Plan requires clarification as to ‘change/review process’.

It is acknowledged that further detail could be provided in relation to changes to use and development policies and actions from the 2005 Plan, to clarify the Trust’s current policy.

Amend s 2.5.1 to include clarification of the Plan’s increased emphasis on the promotion of visitation experiences and opportunities, and the change from the previous Plan. Also amend s 4.1 to include a brief clarification on changes relating to use and development.

194.4 Notes that the flowchart in Appendix 3a does not indicate how a multi-municipality proposal would proceed.

There is no change to the actual process, short of a proposal needing to be approved by two municipal authorities (if it required a LUPAA permit). However such a proposal could potentially be submitted as a Project of Regional Significance (if it met the relevant criteria) and be assessed under the process outlined in the LUPAA.

No change.

4B 194.5 Concerned that reference to transport modes in s S2.5 is too limiting.

The definition of Potential Transport Mode (within ‘Transport Depot and Distribution’) includes a number of examples of transport, however is non-exclusive.

No change.

5 194.6 Suggests Trust should track the implementation of actions in previous Plan and subsidiary strategies eg Pinnacle Site Development Plan (2001) to give a better picture of the state of management.

Noted. This has been undertaken in reference to the strategies themselves, and considered in developing policies and actions for the Plan. It is not possible to reference all of the processes and outcomes of the review of the 2005 Plan in the current Plan. Information regarding the review of the 2005 Plan is contained in s 13.3.3, however may be better placed at the beginning of the Plan.

Include new s 1.2.3 covering the review process of the 2005 Plan and the development of the new Plan.

194.7 Suggests the inclusion of more comments/graphs relating to climate, and potentially some modelling related to road closures.

This information is considered to be outside the scope of the Plan itself. The policies and actions contained in the Plan are predicated upon such information, as it is currently available.

No change.

107



194 Cont’d

6 194.8 Notes the reference to an external report (s 6.3.4.1) and the inability to review the actions in that report.

The Plan sets the statutory framework for management of the Park, however, in the interests of flexibility and currency, allows for some policy and management approaches to be set via subsidiary planning strategies. The Wellington Park Social Values and Landscape Assessment provides management recommendations that may act as policy guidelines under the statutory Plan, however at the point of making the Plan, the guidelines had not been adopted as policy by the Trust.

Amend s 6.3.4.1 to require that the Park’s landscape and other social values are taken into account in the management of the Park.

194.9 Suggests further elaboration on historical uses eg ‘ice-collection’, that are no longer possible may assist with understanding causes of climate change.

The ‘ice-collection’ reference is in relation to historic collection for commercial purposes. While it is acknowledged that this may be an indicator of climate change, it is beyond the scope of the Plan to delve further into these issues.

No change.

194.10 Suggests that further detail be given as to the design life and lease arrangements of the telecommunications towers to explain management approach. Also notes that the WIN tower is less obtrusive than the Broadcast Australia tower.

Noted. Further information regarding the length of existing leases would provide clarification. The intent to consolidate existing facilities into the Broadcast Australia tower is based upon the capacity of that tower to accommodate all existing needs.

Amend s 6.4.3 to reference the length of the existing leases.

7 194.11 Notes the inherent uncertainty of referencing the draft Wellington Park Drinking Water Catchment Management Strategy (2009).

The Plan recommends the finalisation of the draft strategy. The draft strategy is itself a revision of an earlier endorsed strategy.

No change.

108



194 Cont’d

8 194.12 Suggests the Plan should clarify the change in the Trust’s position on enabling commercial development at the Pinnacle. The Plan should also contain more detail on development assessment processes for commercial development for community information.

As noted in 194.3 (above), further information regarding changes to the Trust’s position in relation to commercial uses and developments could clarify the current position. Further, a re-ordering of the chapters to ensure that the chapters relating to provision of commercial and recreation services and facilities are read before the chapters relating to assessment of proposals would assist in the reader’s understanding of the policies.

Re-order existing chapters to provide for the current chapters 4, 4A & 4B follow the existing chapters relating to provision of commercial and recreation services and facilities.

Amend s 2.5.1 to include clarification of the Plan’s increased emphasis on the promotion of visitation experiences and opportunities, and the change from the previous Plan. Also amend s 4.1 to include a brief clarification on changes relating to use and development.

194.13 Suggests the installation of binoculars and webcams on the Mountain.

Noted. The current upgrade to the Observation Shelter has included a webcam, and envisages user-pays binoculars.

No change.

13 194.14 Notes that the Plan (s 13.3.3) should clarify how the community was engaged in the review process.

Information regarding the review of the 2005 Plan is contained in s 13.3.3, however may be better placed at the beginning of the Plan.

Include new s 1.2.3 covering the review process of the 2005 Plan and the development of the new Plan.

195 4 195.1 Notes the Plan provides for a great opportunity for expansion of recreation activities through sensible development.

Noted. The Trust’s intent to enable consideration of a range of recreation services and facilities.

No change.

4A 195.2 Notes the need to upgrade the Springs however should not be primary site of visitor facilities.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs, with complementary facilities at the Pinnacle.

No change.

109



195 Cont’d

4B 195.3 Supports development of ‘aerial cableway’ (max two carriages), visitor centre et: environmentally sensible and in keeping with Park values eg enabling visitation by those cannot drive to Pinnacle; low environmental and visual impact; creates more memorable experience; will reduce number of vehicles on the Road; ‘open up the Mountain’s true potential’ as a mountain biking destination.


8 195.4 Notes that current facilities are lacking and unwelcoming.

Noted. The Plan promotes the improvement of services and facilities within the Park, including interpretation (chapter 8).

No change.

9 195.5 Recommends making developing more separated mountain bike trails: safety; access; enjoyability; and return on investment.

The Plan acknowledges the difficulties in providing for multiple-use, particularly from the perspectives of safety and enjoyment. However it is not possible to deliver single-use tracks to fully cater for the growing demand by mountain-bikers, and the Plan provides for the consideration of multiple-use tracks and new single-use tracks as designated in the Bike Strategy.

No change.

196 4A, 4B 196.1 Supports retention of Springs as main development node. Also notes the role of Fern Tree in providing visitor information.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs, with complementary facilities at the Pinnacle. The Trust also works co-operatively with businesses in Fern Tree to provide information regarding the Park.

No change.

110



196 Cont’d

196.2 Supports retention of prohibition on commercial development at Pinnacle: notes previous community opposition in Issues Discussion Paper; major development would struggle to meet development standards; unlikely to be viable given high construction costs; a cable-car development would lead to pressure to close Pinnacle Road; pressure on any Springs development and business at Fern Tree; shouldn’t proceed at expense of Springs.


196.3 Notes the need to improve existing facilities and to rationalise telecommunications towers.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan promotes the improvement of services and facilities within the Park, including interpretation (chapter 8). The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1).

No change.

197 4B, 6 197.1 Opposed to cable-car: Pinnacle area is fragile and unique.


198 4B, 9 198.1 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle and cable-car: places pressure on area; not in keeping with statements in Plan; impacts upon landscape and water catchment values; reduces accessibility for locals; impact upon Fern Tree businesses; concerned about future expansion of development.


111



198 Cont’d

4B, 9 198.2 Suggests the Plan should specifically state that Pinnacle Road will remain open to the public and as much as possible during adverse weather.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan recommends continued implementation of the existing traffic control plan during snow events (s 9.5.2.13) however this action could be improved to directly reference the Trust’s Pinnacle Road Snow Management Policy. Discussion of the policy is contained in s 9.2.1, including reference to the aim of opening the road as soon as possible.

Amend s 9.5.2.13 to better reference the Trust’s Pinnacle Road Snow Management Policy.

199 4B, 9 199.1 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle and cable-car: impact upon landscape values; increased modification of Pinnacle area; ‘gross vulgarisation of ... remarkable landscape’.


200 4A, 4B, 9 200.1 Supports development of approved Springs facility.


No change.

200.2 Opposed to cable-car and associated infrastructure: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; sense of place; incompatible with Plan and Act; vegetation clearance and geological destruction; accessibility via Pinnacle Road and pressure for closure; assessment criteria insufficient for protection; likely need for government subsidies.


200.3 Supports provision of all-weather bus when Road is closed.


No change.

112



201 1 201.1 Notes the need to differentiate between ‘wilderness’ and ‘naturalness’ to reduce degradation of concept of wilderness.

Noted. The intention is to highlight the Park’s ‘naturalness’ rather than directly associate the Park with a high ‘wilderness’ rating.

Amend references to ‘wilderness’ where relevant to emphasise the Park’s ‘naturalness’.

3 201.2 Considers restriction on camping in Remote Zone to be illogical and unclear.

The restriction is simply to assist in protecting the specific environmental and use values of the Remote Zone. Rough camping can result in localised degradation, particularly in popular areas, and the provision for camping in the Natural Zone provides opportunities for visitors to camp in the more remote areas, without having the potential to impact upon the Remote Zone.

No change.

4A 201.3 Considers the Springs should remain the preferred development node.


No change.

4B 201.4 Existing restrictions on development at Pinnacle, and a cable-car in particular, should remain: incompatible with Plan’s zoning, values and objectives; current accessibility is sufficient; intrusive and damaging.


201.5 Suggests that ‘Potential Transport Modes’ should not include cable-car.

Noted. However the Trust‘s policy is to enable consideration of tourism and transport modes, subject to the performance standards contained in the Plan.

No change.

113



201 Cont’d

7 201.6 Suggests that the Plan clarify the reasons for access restrictions in water catchments, given the restrictions have ‘been the basis for user conflict’.

The establishment of Restricted Areas is to minimise risks to drinking water quality from contamination and/or sabotage. This has proven to be successful as a regulatory and educational tool.

However, the Trust also recognises that there may be suitable approved recreational assets and activities that may be provided within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality; this accords with the management objectives for the zone as provided in s 3.2.2 of the Plan. The Plan prescribes public access to be permitted to some existing tracks within the Restricted Area eg Knights Creek Track, and this could be extended to include other new recreation tracks that are approved in accordance with the Plan.




8 201.7 Notes the need to not overly differentiate between ‘tourism’ and ‘recreation’. Supports preparation of Visitation strategy however this should not prevent management decisions eg prohibition on cable-car.

Noted and agreed. The Plan, while at times differentiating between ‘tourism’ and recreation’, acknowledges the need to manage ‘visitation’, in all of its forms eg Part 4 of the Plan is headed ‘Visitor Services Management’. While the Plan recommends the preparation of a Visitation Strategy, the Plan provides a basis for making management decisions in the interim, including consideration of alternative transport modes such as a cable-car.

No change.

9 201.8 Notes the need to expedite implementation of mountain bike management actions given the growth of the activity.

Further development of mountain bike trails will be in accordance with the Trust’s Bike Strategy, recently amended to include the relevant sections of the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan. A new trails linking the Chalet to Junction Cabin is currently being investigated.

No change.

114



201 Cont’d

12 201.9 Supports monitoring approach but suggests Plan should have more detail regarding potential indicators etc.

The Plan (chapter 12) provides a framework for undertaking monitoring, including the priority issues, key desired outcomes, and monitoring methodologies. Further detail, including the identification of performance indicators, will be developed outside of the Plan, in consultation with management agencies.

Amend s 12.7.1.3 to include the need to develop performance indicators for the monitoring priorities.

202 4A, 4B 202.1 Opposed to any commercial development on Mountain: short-sighted; dilute the natural assets. Supports mobile coffee van at Springs.


No change.

8 202.2 Supports maintenance of existing roads and tracks.

Noted. No change.

203 4, 4A, 4B 203.1 Supports development of Springs: appropriate; cost-effective.


No change.

203.2 Strongly objects to Plan enabling ‘Potential Transport Modes’ eg cable-car, and any further development of Pinnacle: notes high value and historical family use and enjoyment of Park; incompatible with Act; obtrusive; expensive to operate; would require large associated development at Pinnacle given weather conditions; bush fire risk; potential need to close Pinnacle Road; commercial development should not be given precedence over preservation of natural values.


204 4, 4A, 4B 204.1 Opposed to any commercial development on Mountain: inappropriate; special and natural place. Supports visitor centre at Springs.


No change.

115



205 4B, 9 205.1 Opposed to cable-car: no justification/need; Pinnacle Road provides adequate access; ‘presence, beauty and grandeur’ of Mountain; incompatible with Plan; impacts upon Park’s fragile qualities; reduce visitor experience; impact upon ‘wildness’; visual intrusion; ‘not economically sensible’; lead to associated commercial developments; overloading of Pinnacle area; vegetation clearance; potential impact upon water quality;


205.2 Suggests Plan should clarify the need for a ‘services and access corridor’.


205.3 Suggests Plan should state Pinnacle Road is to be maintained for access.


206 4B, 9 206.1 Opposed to cable-car: natural heritage; preservation for future; iconic landscape.


207 4B, 9 207.1 Opposed to cable-car: cost to locals; viability; pressure to close Pinnacle Road; visual impacts of infrastructure; destruction of vegetation; not as much snow as once was; Hobart has alternative look-outs; intrinsic value of Mountain.


208 4B, 9 208.1 Opposed to cable-car: destruction of visual integrity; impact upon wildlife habitat and wild environment; noise; suspect commercial viability; susceptibility to closure due to weather; pressure to close Pinnacle Road.


116



208 Cont’d

4b, 9 208.2 Supports provision of all-weather bus in snow conditions.


No change.

209 4, 4A, 4B 209.1 Opposes commercial development on Mountain: waste management; invasive pests and disease; vegetation clearing.


209.2 Supports development of visitor centre and facilities.


No change.

209.3 Opposes cable-car: impacts of major infrastructure; weather variability; viability.


209.4 Supports integrated shuttle-bus and bike system: safe; efficient; affordable; flexible drop-off locations.

Noted. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system. This would necessitate the development of infrastructure at key drop-off points.

No change.

5 209.5 Concerned about impact of feral cats. Suggests Trust be more active in assisting Councils with implementation of Cat Management Regulations 2012.

Agreed. The Plan (s 6.2.4) provides for the Trust to work with adjoining land owners and public authorities to encourage better ownership and management of domestic pets to reduce the potential for introduction of feral animals to the Park.

No change.

6 209.6 Supports Aboriginal heritage management and interpretation, and dual/re-renaming of Mountain.

Noted. The Plan references the dual naming of the broader Park. Any investigation of dual naming would be in accordance with the State Government’s Aboriginal and Dual Naming Policy (released (March 2013). The Plan also provides for long-term engagement with the Aboriginal community, including the development of interpretation.



117



209 Cont’d

7 209.7 Considers the Plan should address the need for environmental flows in North West Bay River to ensure maintenance of diversity of species and aquatic processes.

The Trust recognises the need to maximise environmental flows however also recognises Southern Water’s right to extract water for drinking water purposes. The finalisation of the draft Wellington Park Drinking Water Catchment Strategy (as recommended in s 7.4.10) is a key component in achieving a balance between extraction and environmental flows.

No change.

Other 209.8 Thanks Trust and partners for caring management and community involvement.

Noted. The management of the Park is predicated upon the meaningful involvement of the community.

No change.

210 4A, 4B, 9 210.1 Opposed to cable-car and large-scale developments on Pinnacle: scenic interest and natural beauty; impact on others’ enjoyment; detracts Park values; impact upon rock-climbing; demand upon public funding; impact upon ‘recreational character; Pinnacle Road sufficient; wilderness and sense of place values.


210.2 Supports ‘tasteful cafe/restaurant’ at Pinnacle or Springs.


No change.

210.3 Supports development better public transport options eg buses.

Noted. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system.

No change.

211 3 211.1 Supports management zoning approach, and note previous lack of ‘zoned planning’.

Noted. The current zoning framework has continued from 1997.

No change.

4 211.2 Supports management of the Park for multiple-use while protecting conservation values.

Noted. The Plan seeks to implement the Trust’s desire for promotion of visitor activities and facilities, while protecting and preserving Park values (as required by the Act).

No change.

118



211 Cont’d

4A 211.3 Supports upgrade of Springs but not as primary commercial node.


No change.

4B 211.4 Supports enabling approach of Plan however essential for Trust to guide development. Supports development of cableway: enhance visitor experience; access for residents; in keeping with balance of values and multiple-use.


8 211.5 Supports development of public-private partnerships to develop and interpret the Park, and to fund management activities.

The Plan provides for a range of use and development opportunities, and does not exclude the establishment of public-private partnerships. The current approved development at the Springs is an example of this approach.

No change.

9 211.6 Supports development of more recreational tracks: concerned at safety issues with shared-use tracks.

Development of further recreation tracks will be guided by the relevant recreation strategy. The Trust has safety and use-based concerns regarding multiple-use of existing walking tracks, and will consider all impacts before allowing a change of use, as outlined in s 9.5.1.4.

No change.

10 211.7 Supports increasing amount of high quality interpretation.

Noted. Chapter 10 of the Plan seeks to provide a framework for the establishment of broader interpretation across the Park.

No change.

212 4B, 9 212.1 Opposed to cable-car and commercial development on Pinnacle: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; sense of place; incompatible with Plan; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; noise; littering.


119



213 4A, 4B 213.1 Supports approved development at Springs: practical and planning reasons.


No change.

213.2 Opposes cable-car: Plan should clearly state what the assessment standards would preclude.


9 213.3 Considers that Pinnacle Road reaches capacity in summer as well as winter: any alternative access modes should be considered in light of current inadequacies and realistic options.

The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system, given the difficulties associated with providing a shuttle-bus during snow periods, and the particular physical and environmental constraints of the Park.

No change.

214 4A, 4B, 9 214.1 Supports development of small kiosk at Springs.


No change.

214.2 Opposed to cable-car: potential to be ‘white elephant’; visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; public funding; incompatible with Act and Plan.


214.3 Supports development for low key facilities eg buses and cars, and supports replacement of existing Observation Shelter.

The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system. This would require better shelters and other facilities at the Pinnacle. The Observation Shelter is proposed to be upgraded in the near future.

No change.

214.4 Opposes the action to provide a service and access corridor to the Springs and Pinnacle.


7 214.5 Notes the need to ensure any development does not compromise water quality.

Agreed. The Plan reflects the priority given to the protection of drinking water quality under the Act, and the performance standards within the Plan require proponents to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts upon water quality.

No change.

120



214 Cont’d

11 214.6 Suggests the Park should be reserved as a National Park.

The Park is reserved pursuant to the Act, which provides similar protections to that of a National Park. The Park contains private land, and consequently cannot be reserved as a National Park.

No change.





No change.


The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system.

No change.





No change.



No change.

121







No change.



No change.

218 4A, 4B, 8 218.1 Supports upgrade of Springs visitor facilities but disagrees that Springs should be primary visitor node.


No change.

218.2 Supports commercial development at Pinnacle and cable-car: environmental and economic sense; reduce carbon footprint; improve waste-management; replace powerline easement; encourage longer stay.


No change.

218.3 Suggests Trust should encourage involvement of private sector but notes that Trust should guide any development to ensure public facilities.

The Plan provides for a range of use and development opportunities, and does not exclude the establishment of public-private partnerships. The current approved development at the Springs is an example of this approach. The Trust would be closely involved in the finalisation of any proposed facilities.

No change.

122



218 Cont’d

9 218.4 Suggests snow on Pinnacle Road should be left unploughed for public recreation.

Snow is cleared in accordance with the Trust’s Pinnacle Road Snow Management Policy. Clearance is required to provide for public and telecommunications maintenance access, and to prevent the accumulation of ice.

No change.

218.5 Notes the need for dedicated recreation tracks: safer and more enjoyable.

Development of further recreation tracks will be guided by the relevant recreation strategy. The Trust has safety and use-based concerns regarding multiple-use of existing walking tracks, and will consider all impacts before allowing a change of use, as outlined in s 9.5.1.4.

No change.

10 218.6 Notes current interpretation is woeful, and lacking in European and Aboriginal heritage.

Noted. Chapter 10 of the Plan seeks to provide a framework for the establishment of broader interpretation across the Park, including both European and Aboriginal heritage.

No change.

13 218.7 Notes desire for information on selection of Trust members, and whether this can be opened to a vote.

Members are either designated by the Act or are nominees of the designated person. Any change to this approach will require an amendment to the Act. The Trust however includes community representation on working groups and strategic planning projects, as required.

No change.

219 2 219.1 Notes agreement with the values-based approach to protection and management of Park.


No change.

4A 219.2 Supports approved development at Springs, including limited accommodation.


No change.

4B, 9 219.3 Opposed to cable-car: visual impact; degradation of values; public funding; lack of local support and use; sufficiency of Pinnacle Road; weather conditions;


123



219 Cont’d

219.4 Supports provision of shuttle-buses: reduces carbon footprint.


No change.

220 4A, 4B 220.1 Supports development of cafe at Springs. Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs, with complementary facilities at the Pinnacle.

No change.

220.2 Opposes any commercial development on Pinnacle: inappropriate and divisive; visual impact.






No change.



No change.

124



222 11 222.1 Notes concern at proposed amendment of Park boundary to include area up to boundary of Tolosa Park and leasehold area: may fetter community use of the area; limited need to enhance compliance measures of vegetation protection; less complicated and more flexible for area to remain outside of the Park; current review of Glenorchy Planning Scheme may result in alternative management approaches; opening of walking access from Tolosa Park may be problematic and may be better to focus resources on current entrance; could consider other boundary alignments; lack of clarity of future zoning of the proposed included area and the possible restrictive nature of management zoning as opposed to planning scheme zoning.

The land area between the Park and Tolosa Park require management by the Glenorchy City Council, irrespective of whether it is in the Park. The Plan recommends the commencement of the statutory process to amend the boundary of the Park, however further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues.

Amend ss 11.2 & 11.4.5 to recommend that any change to the existing boundary be undertaken following further negotiation with land-owning agencies, neighbouring private landowners and other stakeholders.

222.2 Suggests possibility of amending boundary near Limekiln Reservoir to remove sections of lease from Park and resolve existing quarry issues, and consequent adjustments to the proposed Restricted Area.

As noted above, further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment given land tenure and leasehold issues. The Trust has however been approached to carry out a boundary adjustment near Limekiln Reservoir to resolve the ownership of land impacted upon by the quarry.

Amend ss 11.2 & 11.4.5 to recommend that any change to the existing boundary be undertaken following further negotiation with land-owning agencies, neighbouring private landowners and other stakeholders.

223 4B, 9 223.1 Supports development of more mountain bike trails, and cable-car.

Refer discussion in section 4 re cable-car. Further development of bike tracks and trails will be in accordance with the Trust’s Bike Strategy.

No change.

224 2 224.1 Recommends nomination of Park as World Heritage Area, based upon principles in Burra Charter.

On its individual merits, it is unlikely that the Park would meet the criteria for listing for World Heritage protection. However the Plan recommends preparing an application for National Heritage Listing (s 6.3.3.6).

No change.

125



225 4, 9 225.1 Opposes cable-car and use of ‘Potential Transport Modes’: impact on skyline; Pinnacle Road is sufficient if given ‘effort and resources’.


226 4, 4A, 4B, 8 226.1 Supports enabling of commercial development options to ‘enhance overall experience and management’: visitation should generate revenue; quality of access and amenity is related to quality of experience; development at Pinnacle can address management issues and deliver benefits; development at Pinnacle would lead to increased pressure on Pinnacle Road and alternative transport options should be considered which do not diminish existing forms of access/amenity and complement existing transport modes eg aerial cableway.


226.2 Notes the assessment standards are ‘stringent and appropriate’, and Plan is ‘fair and reasonable’.

Noted. The standards attempt to ensure that any proposed use or development avoids or minimises potential impact upon Park values.

No change.

226.3 Notes the formation of Mt Wellington Cableway Company, and desire to work with Trust under the criteria and guidelines in Plan.

Noted. The Trust would expect to be closely involved in any major development proposals for the Park.

No change.

227 2 227.1 Considers that protection of natural values should take precedence over other considerations. Notes the conflict between the overall KDOs of the Plan (s 2.6) and development of the Pinnacle.

It is acknowledged that the Plan places greater emphasis on enhancing visitation and the visitor experience, however seeks to do this without adversely impacting upon the Park’s natural and cultural values. The over-arching KDOs reflect this approach, by seeking to enhance visitor experiences while protecting and maintaining Park values; this is reinforced in the performance standards in chapter 4B, which seek to ensure any new uses and/or developments avoid or minimise adverse impacts upon Park values.

No change.

126



227 Cont’d

4 227.2 Considers that all commercial development should be subject to an environmental bond, and should not be supported by government subsidy.


4B 227.3 Considers that Plan has been amended to allow for cable-car proposal, and notes previous results of Issues Discussion Paper whereby majority of submissions supported retaining prohibition on commercial development at Pinnacle.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Trust has considered the responses to the earlier Discussion Paper in forming the policies and actions in the Plan, however has determined that the Plan should enable consideration of commercial uses and developments, subject to the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

227.4 Opposed to cable-car (but not development in general): prefer prohibition to relying on assessment criteria; don’t need to match similar operations in other countries; at odds with reasons visitors come to Tasmania; doubts economic viability (road access, low local use); impact upon Fern Tree businesses and Springs development; Pinnacle Road suitable; no social benefit; status quo should prevail where there is doubt; furthering the existing physical impact and landscape degradation upon Pinnacle environment; impact of placement of towers; incompatible with the objectives of the Pinnacle Special Area Plan; no demonstrated community need.


No change.

7 227.5 Notes concern over potential impact of development at Pinnacle on drinking water supply.

Refer discussion in section 4. Any proposal would be assessed in accordance with the relevant Performance Criteria.

No change.

8 227.6 Considers that existing amenities and facilities should be improved but additional new development should not be allowed, especially on Pinnacle.


No change.

127



227 Cont’d

8 227.7 Considers that services corridor to Springs and Pinnacle has no demonstrated need.


228 4A, 4B 228.1 Supports development of cable-car at Pinnacle and improved commercial facilities at both Pinnacle and Springs.


No change.

6 228.2 Notes the Aboriginal history of the Mountain.

Noted. The Plan encourages the engagement of the Aboriginal community in future management and interpretation of the Park.

No change.

229 4B, 9 229.1 Opposed to cable-car: undeveloped nature of the Mountain; associated commercial infrastructure; weather considerations; visual impact; better to develop a visitor centre in Fern Tree.


229.2 Supports more frequent clearing of snow and provision of shuttle-buses during snow events.

Noted. Provision of a shuttle-bus during snow periods is problematic given limited demand, however the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system. The snow is cleared from Pinnacle Road as soon as possible to allow public and maintenance vehicle access.

No change.





No change.

128



230 Cont’d

4A, 4B, 9 230.3 Supports development better public transport options eg buses.


No change.

231 4A, 4B 231.1 Support development of Springs: better climatic conditions.


No change.

231.2 Oppose cable-car: impact upon water catchment; viability; increased fire hazard; impact upon Fern Tree businesses; Mountain is more than a means of generating income.


232 4B 232.1 Opposes cable-car: Mountain has played major role in personal development and confidence; spiritual meaning of Mountain; ‘intrusion of city into the Park’; visibility and effect on senses of pylons and terminal; sense of place; snow days are insufficient to warrant a cable-car; accessible by Road.


232.2 Recommends that the Pinnacle Special Area be limited to existing infrastructure footprint.



8 232.3 Recommends that the proposed services corridor be limited to existing tracks and trails.


129



232 Cont’d

9 232.4 Supports the provision of tracked shuttle-buses for snow days.


No change.

232.5 Considers that Plan should state that Pinnacle Road will be kept open free of charge.


233 4A, 4B 233.1 Supports development of visitor centre and food services at Springs.


No change.

233.2 Opposes cable-car: results in more buildings at the Pinnacle; ugly and noisy.


234 4B 234.1 Opposed to cable-car and food services at Pinnacle: suggests removal of references to cable-car/funicular rail/cable rail, ‘food services’ and ‘associated retail’ from s S2.5; competition with Fern Tree businesses; closure of Pinnacle Road; visual intrusion; sacred nature of Pinnacle (scattering of family ashes); private profit from cable-car; incompatible with Act.


234.2 Supports ongoing prohibition of accommodation and camping at Pinnacle.


234.3 Notes concern at increase in size of the Pinnacle Special Area and recommends return to size of Pinnacle Zone.



130



234

Cont’d

4B 234.4 Supports upgrade of the Observation Shelter, and removal of obsolete telecommunication facilities.


No change.

9 234.5 Notes that Pinnacle Road must remain open for the community to enjoy.


235 4B, 9 235.1 Supports cable-car: cannot otherwise walk; too scared to drive on Pinnacle Road; other locations in world have cable-cars that aren’t a ‘blight’.


236 2 236.1 Notes that vision statement should not be interpreted to mean access should be provided to all places, and notes that visitor experience KDO should not be at expense of conservation values or the existing experience.

The Vision provides an aspirational target of improving the visitor experience for the greatest range of visitors; the Plan however provides opportunities for achieving this while protecting the natural and cultural values for which the Park is reserved. This results in the zoning system which seeks to protect areas of particular value eg the Remote Zone. The over-arching KDOs provide high-level targets, which are reduced to clearer statements within the various chapters and issues, and include outcomes relating to the protection of natural values.

No change.

4 236.2 Notes that any commercial development must not be to detriment of Park values and existing users, and be viable without government support.


4B, 9 236.3 Opposed to cable-cars, funicular railways etc.


131



236 Cont’d

8 236.4 Notes that conservation should be prioritised ahead of human needs and development.


No change.

9 236.5 Notes thanks for North-South Track and rationalisation of climbing tracks.

Noted. No change.

236.6 Notes that Pinnacle Road should be maintained for public access when possible.


12 236.7 Notes appreciation of Trust’s role in balancing conservation and use, and seeks to have this continue.

Noted. The Plan makes no change to the existing management framework.

No change.

237 4A 237.1 Supports development at Springs: doesn’t need to be replicated at Pinnacle


No change.

4B, 9 237.2 Opposes cable-car and commercial development at Pinnacle: long personal history with Mountain; sense of place; diminish beauty; incompatible with Act; pressure to close Pinnacle Road; cost of tickets preventing access to low income owners; clash with other users; visual intrusion; impact upon Fern Tree businesses.


237.3 Notes desire to always have access via Pinnacle Road.


238 4B 238.1 Notes that P9.1 (Table S2.6) potentially excludes any intrusion, whereas it should only exclude ‘detrimental’ intrusions, given some intrusions are complimentary to natural scenery.

Agreed: the performance criteria as stated will prevent any development above 3.5m. The Plan’s concern is to minimise any adverse impact to given values. The criteria is replicated in the Springs Specific Area Plan (chapter 4A).

Amend ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 5, P5.1) to require that it be shown that the building will not ‘adversely visually intrude’ into the landscape.

132



239 4B, 9 239.1 Opposes cable-car: violates principles of Plan; impact upon others’ enjoyment of Park; Road provides better access to other points of interest; no justification based upon limited Road closures.









No change.

133



241 3, 4, 4B 241.1 Considers that the Permitted and Discretionary uses and developments in Table 3 and chapter 4B are in conflict with management objectives of Pinnacle Special Area (s 3.3.2), and specifically opposed to cable-car: impact upon environmental and cultural features, and scenic qualities; questions economic value and impact; notes the views of Dr Ken Chapman (Sky Rail) (a cable-car will require substantial and costly additional commercial infrastructure; visitor numbers may be insufficient to make project viable); community division.


8 241.2 Notes that Trust needs to enhance eco-tourism and economic values of Park without dividing the community.

Agreed. The Plan recommends the preparation of a Visitation Strategy that will inform the development of facilities and services that are both in keeping with visitor needs and desires, and with the conservation of Park values.

No change.

242 2 242.1 Supports main objective of Plan to protect natural, scenic and cultural values.


No change.

4A 242.2 Supports development of Springs with low-key visitor facilities.


No change.

4B, 9 242.3 Opposed to cable-car and large developments at Pinnacle: unlikely to be viable and burden on community; scenic values should be prioritised over commercial activities.


242.4 Notes that Pinnacle Road should remain open for low cost access.


134



243 4A 243.1 Supports development of Springs: historical use; no impact on skyline.


No change.

4B, 9 243.2 Opposed to cable-car: impact upon skyline; Pinnacle Road and tracks already provide good access; tourists come to Tasmania for natural beauty; little financial gain for Tasmania; Mountain shouldn’t be seen as opportunity for profit.


243.3 Supports establishment of Council-provided 4wd access during snow periods.


No change.

244 4A 244.1 Supports interpretation centre at Springs. Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the provision of visitor facilities and services at the Springs, with complementary facilities at the Pinnacle.

No change.

4B, 9 244.2 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle and cable-car: detract from Mountain experience; climatic conditions; construction costs; Pinnacle Road access is adequate; contrary to values espoused in Plan.


245 4B, 9 245.1 Opposed to cable-car: foot-print at either end and along route; replicates facilities to be built at Springs; adverse weather conditions; pressure to close Pinnacle Road.


135



246 4A 246.1 Supports development of Springs, including accommodation.


No change.

4B 246.2 Supports commercial development of Pinnacle, including cable-car: notes existence of cable-car at other heritage site (Great Wall of China); Pinnacle already has existing development; Pinnacle needs better facilities.


9 246.3 Suggests that Plan should provide limited access for trail/quad bikes by commercial operators to assist management of existing illegal access.

The Trust believes that the disadvantages associated with any permitted access of trail/quad bikes eg noise, safety risks, outweigh any potential advantages in terms of removing unregistered vehicles from surrounding areas.

No change.

247 4A 247.1 Supports limiting commercial development to Springs.


No change.

4B, 9 247.2 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle, including cable-car: Park should not be used to ‘fleece’ visitors; locals have right to peaceful enjoyment; undermine businesses at Fern Tree; impact upon drinking water quality.


136



248 3, 9 248.1 Requests that Plan provides for access to Restricted Area (Knights Creek) for route improvements to Knights Creek Track in association with proposed Big Bend Mountain Bike Trail Concept. Also notes that size of Restricted Area is excessive and that part of catchment is to be decommissioned, and requests relaxation of boundaries of the Restricted Area.

The Trust considers that the Restricted Area has been effective both as an educational and regulatory tool in achieving protection of drinking water quality. However the Trust also recognises that there may be suitable approved recreational assets and activities that may be provided within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone that may be constructed and subsequently managed to minimise any impacts upon water quality; this accords with the management objectives for the zone as provided in s 3.2.2 of the Plan. The Plan prescribes public access to be permitted to some existing tracks within the Restricted Area eg Knights Creek Track, and this could be extended to include other new recreation tracks that are approved in accordance with the Plan.

Any proposals for use and development are subject to the performance standards in chapter 4 of the Plan; the standards include specific reference to water quality (Table 5, Issue 3). Further, s 7.4.2 provides limitations on use and developments within buffer areas to watercourses within the Drinking Water Catchment Zone, while s 4.5.5.3 requires all proposals requiring a LUPAA permit to be referred to Southern Water for advice. The Plan could also recognise the need for appropriate water quality risk assessments to be carried out on proposals for new assets in the Drinking Water Catchment Zone.




249 4B, 9 249.1 Opposed to cable-car: visual impacts and protection of natural beauty; contrary to Act; vegetation clearance; accessibility via Pinnacle Road; cost of ticket and lack of viability.


137



250 4A 250.1 Supports approved development at the Springs.


No change.

4B, 9 250.2 Opposed to cable-car and associated commercial development at Pinnacle: intrinsically destructive; eye-sore; vegetation clearance; noise; clash with visitor experience and enjoyment; Pinnacle Road sufficient; pressure to close Pinnacle Road or to get Government subsidy; conflict with Act.


250.3 Supports retention of Pinnacle Road irrespective of cable-car, and provision of all-weather bus during road closures.


No change.

251 4A 251.1 Supports development of visitor centre at Springs.


No change.

4B, 9 251.2 Opposed to commercial development at Pinnacle and cable-car: trip up Pinnacle Road is part of the visitor experience; road closures are part of the mystery; conflict with Act; devalue inherent values and sense of place; vegetation clearing; visual and noise pollution.


251.3 Supports retention of public access to Pinnacle Road.


252 4B, 9 252.1 Petition (90 signatures) supporting lifting of prohibition on commercial development at Pinnacle and supporting development of cable-car.


138



253 1 253.1 Notes the hierarchy of purposes under the Act, and the need for the Plan to express this.

The Plan seeks to implement the Trust’s desire for promotion of visitor activities and facilities, while protecting and preserving Park values (as required by the Act). The management principles and objectives contained in s 2.5 of the Plan then translate the aims of the Act into the Trust’s desired management approach.

No change.

253.2 Suggests the summary of the Forest Practices Act requires additional wording to reflect jurisdiction relating to clearing of vegetation by Planning Authorities.

Noted. The text should reflect the full extent of the role of the Forest Practices Act and Regulations.

Amend s 1.2.2 to reflect the fact that the Forest Practices Act and associated Regulations do not regulate clearing of vegetation approved under a LUPAA permit.

253.3 Suggests that the Plan should include a policy that aims to reduce loss/conversion of native vegetation along the lines of the Permanent Native Forest Estate Policy, and include threatened species/habitat, visual sensitivity, and high risk areas. The policy could also define ‘essential’ use and development, and limit new uses and developments to existing cleared areas.

The requirement to protect the Park’s natural and cultural values is provided by the Act, and the Plan outlines the policies by which such values are protected and managed. The Plan requires that new developments utilise previously disturbed areas where possible (s 8.5.2.2), thus minimising the need for further clearing of vegetation. The performance standards contained in chapter 4 – 4B also ensure that any approved development minimises any adverse impacts upon natural and cultural values. The Plan recommends the preparation of a Visitation Strategy (s 8.5.1) to identify future visitor needs and opportunities. It is considered unnecessary to duplicate these policies with a further external policy as suggested in the representation.

No change.

2 253.4 Suggests proposed vision should limit accessibility to that which retains Park values.

The Vision reflects the Trust’s desire to promote visitor opportunities and experiences, while protecting Park values. The second part of the Vision reflects the values that to be protected.

No change.

139



253 Cont’d

2 253.5 Suggests amendment of first management objective (s 2.5.2) to be consistent with the purposes provided by the Act.

The objective seeks to complement the Trust’s approach of promoting visitor opportunities within the Park. The objective itself seeks ‘consistency’ with the appreciation of the Park’s natural and cultural values, while those values are themselves acknowledged in other objectives within s 2.5.2.

No change.

253.6 Suggests preamble to KDOs (s 2.6) be amended to reflect requirement that visitation be consistent with the protection and preservation of Park values. Also suggests first KDO be amended to ‘Maintain visitor experiences ...’ given the need to ‘enhance’ the experience has not yet been justified.

The preamble reflects the Trust’s desire that this Plan take a proactive approach to the enhancement of visitor services, facilities and experiences. The role of the Plan is to ensure that any delivery of such services is not to the detriment of the Park’s natural and cultural values.

The first KDO again reflects this approach. While the Plan makes a later recommendation to undertake a Visitation Strategy (s 8.5.1), the Trust’s approach is to seek opportunities that will enhance visitation, and consequently have identified this as a desired outcome.

No change.

3 253.7 Supports rationale and types of zoning, however suggests further detail is required on the development of the respective zone and Special Area boundaries, particularly the expansion of the Pinnacle Special Area, any divergence of the Drinking Water Catchment Zone, and the Recreation Zone (given its high visual amenity).

It is agreed that, given the changes to zoning and the inclusion of Specific Areas into the Plan, that further explanation of these changes should be provided.

Amend s 3.1.3 to reference the changes in the zone boundaries from the 2005 Plan.

140



253 Cont’d

3 253.8 Suggests Pinnacle Special Area be kept as small as possible with expanded area to be retained in Natural Zone, and a stronger approach to the rationalisation of telecommunication facilities within the area.

The area has been extended to provide for opportunities for use and development that would be unavailable within the previous zone boundary. The Trust has removed the previous prohibitions that restricted use and development, however has developed assessment standards to ensure the adverse impacts of use and development is avoided or minimised. The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1).

Amend s 3.1.3 to reference to reference the extension of the previous Pinnacle Zone to that of the Pinnacle Special Area.

253.9 Suggests both Special Areas should include an objective that seeks to limit any effects of development on adjacent zones.

The objectives for the two Special Areas provide for the management of those areas, however will also influence any potential effects on adjoining areas. Both areas have an objective of protecting the scenic quality of the respective area. The performance standards contained in chapters 4A & 4B will also limit the potential for adverse impact upon adjoining areas.

No change.

253.10 Suggests management objective for the Natural Zone needs to be strengthened to protect vegetation condition and to limit development.

It is agreed that the introduction of ‘generally’ to the zone objective may create uncertainty, particularly given the subjective nature of the objective ie ‘preserve the relatively undisturbed condition ...’. This could be rectified by the addition of text to clarify the objective.

Amend s 3.2.3, point 1 to: preserve the zone in a relatively undisturbed condition, except for necessary minimal disturbance associated with approved uses and developments.

4 253.11 Supports maintenance of dual approval processes to ensure Trust’s whole-of-Park approach.

Noted. No change.

253.12 Notes that activities provided by Table 2 should be limited by location, type and scale to minimise impacts upon Park values.

The allowable activities prescribed in Table 2 are further defined in other sections of the Plan. The table could however reference these later sections to ensure a clear picture for the reader.

Amend Table 2 to reference later sections in the Plan that define any limitations on allowable activities.

141



253 Cont’d

4 253.13 Notes concern at inclusion, without any explanation, of ‘Potential Transport Modes’ in definition of Transport Depot and Distribution in Table 3, and the inclusion of cable-car, funicular railway and aerial ropeway in the definition, and suggests amendment to limit transport Depot and Distribution to existing corridors.

The inclusion of Potential Transport Nodes reflects the Trust’s desire to open the Plan to consideration of such transport options. Further discussion on the issue is contained in chapter 9 (s 9.2.3), and it is noted that it is proposed to change the order of the chapters (see 194.12). The Plan does not detail all changes that have been proposed from the 2005 Plan, however it is acknowledged that further detail could be provided in relation to changes to use and development policies and actions, to clarify the Trust’s current policy.

Amend s 4.1 to include a brief clarification on changes to the policies relating to use and development from the 2005 Plan.

Re-order existing chapters to provide for the current chapters 4, 4A & 4B follow the existing chapters relating to provision of commercial and recreation services and facilities (chapters 5–9).

253.14 Notes concern over provision for facilities associated with multi-day recreation trail in Table 3 given the representor does not agree with the track concept.

The proposed multi-day walk is currently undergoing a feasibility study, and any proposal will be required to demonstrate minimal impact upon Park values, and the necessity for having them within the Park eg s 4.5.2.5. Given the uncertainty as to the exact location of any camping sites or bunk houses, the Trust determined that it was better to create an exception for these facilities within the Remote Zone rather that changing the zone boundaries to accommodate the facilities. This reflects the Trust’s desire to promote visitation experiences and activities within the Park. The concept of a multi-day recreation track is discussed further in ss 9.3.2 & 9.5.1.4 of the Plan.

Amend Table 3 to include reference to ss 9.3.2 & 9.5.1.4 of the Plan.

253.15 Suggests that Table 3 be amended to require Trust to actively investigate removal/improvement to existing telecommunications facilities in the Pinnacle area.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1). While the impacts associated with electricity supply easements and disturbance are noted in the Plan, there is no direct management action addressing this issue.

Add new s 6.4.3.2 to require the Trust to work with electricity supply agencies to minimise the impact of existing easements, and to seek improvements to supply technologies (as they become available).

142



253 Cont’d

4 253.16 Concerned that Table 3 provides for a range of facilities that may impact upon Park values. Suggests the Plan should limit the number, type and scale of such facilities, and that no new recreation tracks be constructed.

Table 3 provides for consideration of a range of visitor services and facilities, in keeping with the Trust’s desire to enhance visitation and visitor experiences. Proposals for new recreation tracks must be in accordance with the relevant recreation strategy, and would be assessed against the performance standards provided in chapters 4 – 4B of the Plan.

No change.

253.17 Generally supports list of Exempt uses and developments (Table 4) subject to a vegetation clearing and management policy (noted above).

The Exemptions are adopted from the State Government planning template, and provide adequate basis for management agencies to undertake low-level management actions. As outlined in 253.3, the suggestion of a further vegetation conservation policy is not endorsed.

No change.

253.18 Notes that standards in Table 5 are ‘admirable’ however insufficient to protect Park values, and suggests need for policies/rules regarding clearance of vegetation and development.

The standards consider a range of issues to ensure the protection of Park values. The Trust’s approach as reflected in the Plan is to provide for the consideration of new uses and developments in accordance with Table 3, and to then assess the impact of any proposals against the standards in chapters 4, 4A & 4B.

No change.

4A, 4B 253.19 Opposed to cable-car or other new transport systems: listing as Discretionary allows threat to remain; intrinsically destructive and eye-sore; clearance of vegetation; visual and noise pollution; impact upon geology; clash with visitor experience; Pinnacle Road is sufficient, even with infrequent closure; impact of closure of road on tourists and locals; contrary to Act; no need to replicate approved Springs development; clash with passive commercial users.


143



253 Cont’d

4A, 4B 253.20 Alternatively, if alternative transport modes be retained, the Plan should: limit any development to existing developed area, with height and design restrictions; ensure development doesn’t compete with Springs eg only take-away food; no vegetation clearance; no development in high visually sensitive areas; (for cable-car) ensure Pinnacle Road remains open, and development is financially viable and places removal/rehabilitation bond.

The Plan requires that new developments utilise previously disturbed areas where possible (s 8.5.2.2), thus minimising the need for further clearing of vegetation. The performance standards contained in chapter 4 – 4B also ensure that any approved development minimises any adverse impacts upon natural and cultural values. Also refer discussion in section 4.

No change.

5 253.21 Notes the need for fire management to be the highest management priority, and should be given a dedicated chapter in Plan to emphasise its importance (as per water management and track management).

Fire management is recognised as a key issue for management of the Park, and its link to climate change is noted in s 5.2. Management of threats related to fire is also addressed comprehensively in chapter 6 (s 6.2.1). The format of the Plan is to have the chapters 5 & 6 relate to all threats and management approaches, with the exception of drinking water.

No change.

253.22 Suggests that the Plan should include ranking of threats and priorities for funding.

The threats are not ranked given their inherent interaction, and the reality that lower ranked threat6s can have particular impacts in certain situations. The Plan seeks to highlight these listed threats as they are all fundamentally important to the management of the Park and the protection of its values.

No change.

253.23 Suggests that the Plan should seek to ‘avoid’ threats and pressures, rather than ‘minimise’ as outlined in s 5.1.

Noted. The Plan seeks to avoid negative impacts but also recognises that some uses and developments have inevitable impacts, and that these should be minimised where possible.

Amend s 5.1 to reference the need for management of the Park to avoid adverse impacts upon Park values where possible.

144



253 Cont’d

5 253.24 Suggests s 5.5 should recognise the need for regular risk assessments for invasive species, particularly for known invasions eg feral goats.

Chapter 5 raises the threat of introduced fauna to the Park. Chapter 6 (s 6.2.4) then references the need to undertake ongoing monitoring of the numbers and impacts of introduced species, particularly feral goats, prior to undertaking management responses.

No change.

253.25 Notes that clearance of vegetation is not considered as a threat resulting from activities, use and development, particularly the listed New Transport Modes.

It is acknowledged that clearance of vegetation as a result of new approved developments may result in a localised reduction in natural values. The intent of the Plan is to balance the provision of visitor services and facilities with the protection of Park values, and the performance standards contained in chapter 4 – 4B seek to ensure that any adverse impacts are minimised or mitigated. Further, the Plan requires that new developments utilise previously disturbed areas where possible (s 8.5.2.2), thus minimising the need for further clearing of vegetation.

No change.

253.26 Suggests rewording the KDO to recognise avoidance of threats and then minimisation of impact.

Agreed. The Plan seeks to avoid negative impacts but also recognises that some uses and developments have inevitable impacts, and that these should be minimised where possible.

Amend s 5.10 to reference an outcome that avoids adverse impacts upon Park values where possible.

145



253 Cont’d

6 253.27 Notes the importance of fire management, however concerned about implementation of management strategies. Considers that the Plan should reconsider the importance of protection of life and property against biodiversity values, particularly in the more remote areas of the Park, and that this should be reflected in the allocation of resources.

The Trust’s view is that protection of life and property is the paramount concern where there is a direct threat from bushfire. However the Fire Management Strategy takes a risk-management approach where measures to reduce the bushfire risk to life and property are proportional to level of risk, and are balanced against protection of the Park’s natural and cultural values.

It should be noted that unplanned fires are as much a threat to biodiversity as they are to life and property. The main aim of the Fire Management Strategy is to minimise the risk of bushfires starting and spreading in the Park. In the remote areas of the Park the measures taken are primarily focussed on protecting natural and water catchment values.

In terms of the implementation of the Strategy,

biodiversity values strongly influence how a particular

Amend s 6.2.1 to note that unplanned fires are a major threat to life, property and natural and cultural values within, and surrounding, the Park.

253.28 Considers it ‘astonishing’ that Plan has no specific restriction on clearing and conversion of native vegetation, particularly in light of proposals for new facilities and activities. Suggests inclusion of vegetation policy, and suitable amendment of the KDO.

The requirement to protect the Park’s natural and cultural values is provided by the Act, and the Plan outlines the policies by which such values are protected and managed. The Plan requires that new developments utilise previously disturbed areas where possible (s 8.5.2.2), thus minimising the need for further clearing of vegetation. The performance standards contained in chapter 4 – 4B also ensure that any approved development minimises any adverse impacts upon natural and cultural values. It is agreed that the desired outcome of no loss of vegetation values should be included as a KDO in s 6.2.3.

Amend s 6.2.3 to include a new KDO relating to there being no loss of vegetation other than for approved management purposes.

146



253 Cont’d

6 253.29 Suggests amending KDOs to aim for ‘zero unnecessary disturbance’ and avoidance of spread of invasive species.

Agreed. The Plan should seek to achieve no impact in the first instance, however also recognises that some uses and developments have inevitable impacts, and that these should be minimised where possible.

Amend the KDOs in s 6.2.4 to reference an outcome that avoids adverse impacts upon Park values where possible.

253.30 Suggests the Plan should contain an action requiring regular risk assessments for new and existing invasive species, and notes recent enactment of Cat Management Act 2012.

Noted. The Plan references the need for monitoring of feral goats however should be expanded to include new or potential threats to the Park.

Amend s 6.2.4.6 to expand the recommended monitoring to new and potential threats posed by introduced fauna.

Amend s 6.2.4 to reference the powers provided by the Cat Management Act 2012.

8 253.31 Notes the Plan’s consideration of current and changing visitor use, and the inconsistency of a cable-car with this use, and the majority of submissions to the Trust’s previous consultation opposing the existing prohibitions on commercial development.

Noted. The Plan seeks to provide a balance between the provision of high quality and accessible visitor services and facilities, while protecting and conserving Park values. Further discussion regarding the cable-car is contained in section 4 of this report.

No change.

253.32 Suggests that there is no demonstrated need to allow for more development or to balance use with protection of Park values, and that existing experiences should be more accurately promoted to avoid dissatisfaction. Supports the preparation of a Visitation Strategy to address user needs so long as it is not confined to a cable-car etc, and notes the need to consult with existing commercial operators.

The recommendation for a Visitation Strategy is predicated upon the improvement of a range of visitor services and facilities, and is not related to the development of a cable-car. Preparation of the strategy would involve input from existing commercial operators.

No change.

253.33 Notes the desire for implementation of the existing approved development at the Springs and that the current lack of development at the Springs should not be a reason for allowing development at the Pinnacle.

The Plan notes the suitability of the Springs for development of ‘long stay’ facilities, and the pinnacle for ‘short stay’ facilities associated with sight-seeing. However the Trust seeks to ensure that various opportunities can be considered and assessed via the Plan’s performance standards.

No change.

147



253 Cont’d

8

253.34 Suggests amendment of s 8.3.2 to note the requirement of the Act that recreational facilities must not conflict with the protection of natural values.

Noted. The Plan should seek to ensure that developments avoid adverse impacts upon Park values in the first instance, and then mitigate these where necessary.

Amend s 8.3.2 to note the provision of visitor services and facilities should avoid adverse impacts upon Park values where possible.

253.35 Suggests that the first KDO in s 8.4.1 be amended to specify only currently permitted economic activities.

The KDO is recognising the potential for ‘economic benefit’, not advocating particular activities.

No change.

253.36 Suggests that the use of ‘respecting’ in the first KDO in s 8.4.2 is inadequate, and the KDO should prohibit developments where they conflict with the protection of Park values.

Noted. The KDO should reference the need to avoid or minimise any adverse impacts resulting from visitor services and facilities.

Amend s 8.4.2 (number corrected) to note the outcome of provision of visitor services and facilities that avoid adverse impacts upon Park values where possible.

253.37 Supports preparation of Visitor Strategy however: Plan should prohibit alternative transport modes that cannot use Pinnacle Road until the strategy is prepared; the strategy should determine ‘absolute limits to visitation’; new tracks should be prohibited until strategy is finalised (s 9.5.2.2).

The Visitation Strategy seeks to investigate appropriate levels and locations of visitor services and facilities, with the aim of increasing visitation and enhancing the visitor experience. Any resultant proposals for new developments would be assessed against the performance standards, which provide for a performance-based approach to such development. The Plan does not prescribe absolute maximums, however relies upon an assessment and management of any adverse impact upon Park values.

No change.

253.38 Supports principle in s 8.5.2.2, and the Plan should be more restrictive in relation to clearance of native vegetation.

The intent of the Plan is to minimise any adverse impacts resulting from new uses and development, and thus requires that new developments utilise previously disturbed areas where possible (s 8.5.2.2). However the Plan recognises that impacts may result from new facilities and services, and provides performance standards (chapters 4–4B) to ensure that any approved development mitigates any adverse impacts upon natural and cultural values.

No change.

148



253 Cont’d

8 253.39 Supports recommendation in s 8.5.2.3, however the Plan should give some indication as to what ‘best practice’ entails.

It is important for the Plan to ensure that the principle of ‘best practice’ is applied in all management circumstances. However it is considered that ‘best practice’ should not be fixed at a point in time, and that its application is necessarily context-specific ie the practice should respond to the given proposal. It is noted that the list in s 8.5.2.3 should be non-exhaustive.

Amend s 8.5.2.3 to ensure that ‘best practice’ methods and principles can be applied in any given development.

253.40 Considers ‘harmonise’ in s 8.5.2.4 is inadequate and that the Plan should state the need to reduce any visual impacts. Suggests that Point 1 be amended to reflect desire for ‘least possible clearing’. Considers that the allowance for buildings in Point 3 be changed to reflect any prohibitions on new buildings, including no consideration of new buildings in visually sensitive areas.

It is considered that ‘harmonise’ represents the management intent, and recognises that there will be some impact (though not necessarily adverse) from new developments.

Agreed that ‘wholesale clearing’ in Point 1 may be better worded.

The building height given in Point 3 is a general guide, however building height is further addressed in the performance standards in chapters 4A & 4B.

Amend s 8.5.2.4 (Point 1) to reference the need for least possible clearing.

253.41 Supports the principle in s 8.5.2.8 however considers it has been ignored in relation to cable-car.

The principle would be applied to any proposals for new facilities and developments.

No change.

253.42 Considers that Plan should not provide for access corridor to Springs/Pinnacle (s 8.5.3.1) as it has not been explained by the Trust. Suggests that this section should define developments that are in conflict with the policy outlined in the section.


149



253 Cont’d

8 253.43 Considers: there should be no new tracks or huts in the Remote Zone or Drinking Water Catchment Zone if it entails vegetation clearing (ss 8.5.4.1 & 4, 8.5.5, 9.5.1.6); and that new tracks must first aim to ‘avoid’ impacts upon Park values (s 8.5.4.5).

The Plan seeks to provide for opportunities for new facilities eg walking tracks, to be considered if there is a demonstrated need, and no or minimal impact upon Park values. The Remote and Drinking Water Catchment zones have particular values and management objectives which would be considered in any proposal for new tracks in those areas.

Amend s 8.5.4.5 to recognise the need for new tracks to avoid any adverse impact upon Park values in the first instance.

9 253.44 Supports introduction of shuttle-bus to Pinnacle via existing road, including during snow closures, particularly given relative infrequency of closures, and community support for the mode, possibly supported by user fee for Pinnacle Road. Considers there is no justification for a cable-car based upon the information contained in the Plan, and that that proposal is put forward as a tourist attraction in its own right. Suggests that the Plan explicitly state that Pinnacle Road will be kept open to the public at all times excepting management closures.

Further discussion regarding the cable-car and ongoing access to Pinnacle Road is provided in section 4 of this report. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System, which recommends investigation of a shuttle-bus system. The shuttle-bus could be operated in parallel with private vehicle access however a different approach to access during snow periods may be required given the particular issues and risks involved during road closures.

No change.

253.45 Notes lack of current support for multi-day recreation track, and that funding for existing feasibility study should be redirected to State-wide strategy or returned to Government.

The proposed multi-day walk is currently undergoing a feasibility study, and any resultant proposal will be required to demonstrate minimal impact upon Park values, and the necessity for having them within the Park eg ss 4.5.2.3 & 8.5.2.8. The Trust is undertaking the assessment at the request of the State and Federal Governments. The concept of a multi-day recreation track is discussed further in ss 9.3.2 & 9.5.1.4 of the Plan.

No change.

150



253 Cont’d

9 253.46 Suggests rewording of first KDO (s 9.4) to reflect ‘appropriate’ visitation that protects Park values. Supports second KDO on basis of Plan prescribing limits on number and scale of access, arrival points etc. Suggests amendment of fourth KDO to clarify emergency access.

Agreed that first KDO could be reworded to better reflect the requirements under the Act. The number of access points and routes to and within the Park is self-limiting, given the nature of the local environment; the scale of such points and routes is managed through the assessment of impacts provided in the performance standards. In relation to KDO 4, it is accepted that the provision of emergency access should be proportionate to the scale and urgency of the emergency itself.

Amend s 9.4, KDO 1 to reflect that promotion of visitor opportunities should be consistent with the protection of Park values. Amend KDO 4 to reflect that emergency access should be proportionate to the scale and urgency of the emergency itself.

253.47 Supports preparation of Recreation Strategy (s 9.5.1.1) however: notes strategy should investigate, and clarify assessment criteria for, possible new activities; considers Plan should not allow for development that is an ‘attraction in its own right’; and no new vehicular tracks should be developed until the strategy is completed (s 9.5.2.2).

The Recreation Strategy will both identify visitation and recreation opportunities, and identify the constraints and limitations in achieving the identified opportunities. Any subsequent proposals will be tested against the performance criteria contained within the Plan. The Plan notes the ongoing community debate regarding a cable-car, acknowledging that it can be viewed as an attraction in its own right, however the Plan recommends the preparation of visitation and recreation strategies that identify and encourage developments that are consistent with the values of the Park and meet the meet the needs of Park visitors. Any new vehicular tracks would only be considered in conjunction with emergency management needs eg for fire management purposes if approved in the Trust’s Fire Management Strategy..

No change.

253.48 Considers that the Plan should provide for a more pro-active approach to recreation track and vehicular auditing (ss 9.5.1.11 & 9.5.2.6), and horse-riding access (s 9.5.3).

The Plan identifies the need to both monitor track use and impacts, and to take appropriate management responses. Monitoring of track condition is also a monitoring priority identified in chapter 12.

No change.

151



253 Cont’d

9 253.49 Supports existing limitations and prohibitions on dog exercising, however considers Plan should be clearer regarding tracks permitted for access and the processes for using signs to permit access. Does not support allowing dogs to remain in vehicles at Pinnacle.

Support noted. Dog access prescribed in s 9.5.4.2 is area based, and thus not all permitted tracks are listed. Prohibitions are subsequently listed in s 9.5.4.3. The ability to take dogs to the Pinnacle within vehicles recognises the desire of many people to make an unplanned trip to the Pinnacle.

No change.

253.50 Supports establishment of licence agreements with adjoining land owners.

Noted. No change.

11 253.51 Supports current land tenure arrangements.

Noted. No change.

253.52 Supports the inclusion into the Park of the land parcels identified in s 11.4.5, and that this should be actively stated in the Plan.

Support noted. However, given land tenure and leasehold issues raised in other representations eg 131, further negotiation may be required to determine the exact boundary alignment.


253.53 Suggests the Plan should explain the proposed Park boundary and any procedures relating to investigation of properties to be considered for inclusion (particularly for ref 13-15) and for boundary amendment. Suggests that funding currently used for the Multi-day Recreation Track study be used for acquisition of properties, and/or the Trust encourage owners of identified properties to establish protections over the property.

It is unnecessary for the Plan to outline the boundary amendment process in detail, as this is provided under the Act. It is acknowledged however that there could be better discussion on the reasoning for amending the boundary in s 11.2. The reallocation of the funding for the Multi-day Recreation Track Feasibility Study is not within the Trust’s control. It is agreed that the Plan should recommend that the Trust promote the protection of the properties identified in s 11.4.2 under relevant private land reserve mechanisms.

Amend s 11.4 to clarify the reasoning for amending reserve boundaries as proposed. Insert new s 11.4.6 to require the Trust to promote the protection of the properties identified in s 11.4.2 under relevant private land reserve mechanisms.

12 253.54 Supports the prioritised and cost-efficient approach to monitoring.

Support noted. No change.

152



253 Cont’d

13 253.55 Supports investigation of funding models to ensure adequate resources, including Government funding and user access fees. Notes importance of allocation of resources to high priority actions eg fire management, and the limitation of expenditure to essential management and development only.

Noted. The Trust places a high priority on the management of bushfire within the Park.

No change.

253.56 Suggests the inclusion of recreation, community and conservation positions on Trust management committee.


No change.

253.57 Notes the Plan should acknowledge the valuable work carried out by Bushcare and community groups, and the support provided to these groups by land managers.

The involvement and support of community Bushcare groups is acknowledged in ss 13.3.26 & 6.2.4. The Plan recommends the support of such groups in s 6.2.4.7.

Amend s 13.5.2 to reference the need to support community-based Bushcare groups in undertaking weed management and other activities in the Park.

254 4B, 8, 9 254.1 Provides vision for an ‘integrated cultural experience accessible to everyone’, incorporating: transport improvements (improvement to Pinnacle Road, funicular railway linking to Springs); upgrade of public amenities at Springs and throughout Park, especially bushwalking huts; provision of arts and interpretive programme based upon community involvement and technological approach.

The representation takes the form of a concept for future development of facilities and services. The Plan provides for the consideration of the concept, subject to assessment in accordance with the performance standards contained within the Plan.

No change.

153



255 4B 255.1 Notes concern over potential impact of development at Pinnacle on rock climbing, and for any assessment to be cognisant of existing recreational amenity, including the need to maintain access to Pinnacle Road.

It is acknowledged that impact upon the enjoyment or amenity of existing uses is a legitimate issue that should be considered at a high level in all management zones and areas.

Insert new purpose statements into ss 4.2, S1.1.4 & S2.1.4 to require that new uses and developments minimise any adverse impacts upon existing uses, activities and experiences.

255.2 Notes the inclusion of rock climbing in Plan and values recent upgrades to climbing tracks, and desire to work with Trust on proposed Visitation and Recreation Strategies.

Noted. The Trust intends to work closely with all relevant stakeholders in the development of future planning strategies.

No change.

9 255.3 Notes importance of vehicular access to climbing sites via Pinnacle Road, and requests that current access arrangements be maintained.

Refer discussion in section 4. The Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system that complements private vehicle access to Pinnacle Road.

No change.

256 4B, 9 256.1 Notes extensive personal history with Mountain and travelling experience, and supports cable-car: year-round experience; different and improved experience; magnify sense of place; won’t compromise natural character of Mountain; awareness and visitor education; sensitive development would improve Pinnacle; not visually obtrusive if care taken; quiet and clean transport; economic stimulus; must be subject to Trust’s control.


257 4 257.1 Considers chapter 4 ‘dense’ and ‘difficult to easily find the relevant matter’, and suggests Plan should more clearly separate the sections on the PAA and LUPAA permits.

It is acknowledged that chapter 4 is complex, given it must describe two assessment processes relevant to the Park. However the Plan clearly steps through the requirements for each process, and also describes the inter-relationship between the processes; this is further clarified by the Assessment Flow Chart provided in Appendix 3A of the Plan.

Review description of processes in chapter 4 to ensure clarity on the assessment processes.

154



257 Cont’d

4 257.2 Considers that economic viability (in relation to assessment of commercial development) needs to be defined in order to clearly state both what is of concern and what is to be assessed by the Trust.

The requirement of the Plan (s 4.5.1.4) for a detailed business and financial plan seeks to ensure that all relevant financial and non-financial issues, costs and revenues are identified, and to enable an assessment of economic viability. It is recognised however that there may be minimum requirements of the business plan, particularly given the tenure and value of the Park; these requirements could be articulated in the Plan and be based upon State Government guidelines for business operators. Further, the broad criteria used for assessing economic viability could be made clear in the Plan, to both minimise confusion for potential developers and to ensure that the assessment is not confined to mere financial components ie the assessment should include the management and social benefits to the Park as a result of the development proposal.

Amend s 4.5.1.4 to provide:

Guidance on the minimum requirements for the structure and content of business plans submitted in conjunction with commercial development proposals.

Broad criteria to be used by the Trust in assessing economic viability eg financial sustainability and management benefit to the Park.

257.3 Notes that an Expressions of Interest process may not be required for the selection of a preferred developer, and thus there should be discretion provided to the relevant land owner to choose the desired process.

The Plan provides for the Council (as the landowner) to, at its discretion, undertake an EoI process resulting in the giving of consent to lodge a development application, however the intent is not to lock the Council into this process.

Amend ss 4.5.8 & 4.5.9 to enable the landowner to undertake whatever process it deems appropriate to select a preferred applicant.

155



257 Cont’d

4 257.4 Notes that, while the Plan has numerous provisions referencing heritage listings/code (particularly in relation to the assessment of use and development), the Plan does not actually identify any heritage sites or precincts, and that any such listing should be tested and commented on prior to being included in the Plan (or in the relevant municipal planning scheme). Suggests that any heritage listing or Code should also clearly identify the range of exemptions that apply to such sites for routine maintenance works.

It is agreed in-principle that the Plan should include a list of heritage sites, thus ensuring that such a list has passed through a statutory process; however it is considered that the most efficient way to achieve this is through a future amendment to the Plan. The format of the list could be based upon that used in the State Government template, and provide details as to: location; heritage value and significance; and relevant works exemptions.

In order to manage for the intervening period, the Plan could be drafted to ensure that minor and routine maintenance of heritage sites can be undertaken without the need to submit a PAA (if not otherwise triggered by the Checklist in Appendix 3B).

Amend Table 5 (Issue 4, A4.2) and Tables S1.6 & S 2.6 (Issue 3, A3.2) to remove reference to cultural heritage sites ‘identified in this Management Plan’.

Amend s 4.4.2 (‘The Park Activity Assessment Process’) and Appendix 3B to allow minor and routine maintenance of heritage sites (as listed in accordance with s 6.3.2.1 of the Plan) to be undertaken without the requirement of a PAA.

257.5 Notes uncertainty in Table 3 regarding the definition of accommodation sub-types and that a desirable type of accommodation maybe precluded by the limited types listed. Suggests remove the accommodation types listed under the heading Visitor Accommodation.

The definitions relating to accommodation sub-types were maintained from the State Government template, and may not be relevant to the Park. In reviewing this issue, the Trust considers that ‘residential hotel’ is unsuitable as an example of accommodation to be permitted at the Springs. The types of accommodation that the Trust considers suitable for the Park includes holiday and/or lodge-style cabins, and walkers’ bunkhouses/cabins.

Amend Use tables (Table 3 & Table S1.5) to provide for Visitor Accommodation to be only for: holiday cabins and/or lodge-style complex; and walkers’ bunkhouses and/or cabins.

257.6 Suggests it is unnecessary to repeat information in Table 3 that is relevant to the Springs and Pinnacle Specific Area Plans.

The information is provided in chapter 4, Table 3, as a complete reference for all Permitted, Discretionary and Prohibited uses and developments. The relevant information is then extracted for chapters 4A & 4B.

No change.

257.7 Considers that Issue 5, A5.2 (Table 5) is not certain enough to be used as an Acceptable Solution, and should be redrafted similar to S2.6, Issue9, A9.1 (chapter 4B).

It is agreed that the Acceptable Solution must provide certainty in its approach, and S2.6, Issue9, A9.1 provides a suitable template.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 5, A5.2) to require that the Acceptable Solution include that the maximum building height is 3.5m and any building is not more than 1 storey.

156



257 Cont’d

4 257.8 Suggests rewording of Issue 8, A8.2 (Table 5) to require either a risk statement or plan by an accredited person or from the Tasmania Fire Service. Suggests there is no subsequent need for an associated Performance Criteria (P8.2).

Agreed that the entirety of the Park is likely to be categorised as ‘bushfire prone’, and thus, in accordance with Planning Directive No.5 (Bushfire Prone Areas Code), any new buildings must be accompanied by either a suitable Bushfire Hazard Management Plan, or a statement from the Tasmania Fire Service (or a person accredited by the Service) that a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan is not required.

The Acceptable Solutions provide adequate flexibility for bushfire protection measures to be tailored to the specific requirements of developments in Wellington Park and the performance criteria are not required.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 8, A8.2), S1.6 (Issue 6(b)) & S2.6 (Issue 6(b)) to incorporate the requirements of Sections E1.6.3, E1.6.4 and E1.6.5 of the Bushfire Prone Areas Code, excluding the performance criteria.

257.9 Notes that there is inconsistent wording regarding the requirement of a PAA in certain situations, and that Appendix 3B needs to be redrafted to clarify that a PAA is not required for all activities and development.

This is a drafting error, and the Plan should state that a PAA is not required when the Proposal Checklist (Appendix 3B) indicates there will be ‘no’ negative impact upon park values. The Plan should make it clear that there are exceptions to the need for a PAA that include works carried out in an emergency or works that are unlikely to have a negative impact on Park values. The checklist in Appendix 3B is the means of determining if there is likely to be a negative impact on Park values or not.

Amend ss 4.4.2 & 4.5.2 and Appendix 3B to correct drafting error.

4A 257.10 Notes condition on Vehicle Parking in S1.5 should read ‘only if single storey’.

Agreed. Amend s S1.5 to correct drafting error.

157



257 Cont’d

4A 257.11 Suggests rewording of Issue 6, to replace A6.2–A6.4 with one Acceptable Solution requiring either a risk statement or plan by an accredited person or from the Tasmania Fire Service. Suggests there is no subsequent need for an associated Performance Criteria (P6.2–P6.4).

Refer response in 257.8. Amend Table 5 (Issue 8, A8.2), S1.6 (Issue 6(b)) & S2.6 (Issue 6(b)) to incorporate the requirements of Sections E1.6.3, E1.6.4 and E1.6.5 of the Bushfire Prone Areas Code, inclusive of the relevant performance criteria.

257.12 Suggests amendment of the listed purposes of the Pinnacle SAP (ss 2.1.3–4) to improve clarity and objectivity.

It is agreed that ss S1.1.3 & S2.1.3 (point 5) are too vague to provide sufficient management direction, and their removal would not adversely affect the intent of the section.

It is agreed that ss S1.1.4 & S2.1.4 (point 1) are unclear, and can be amended to require that any services and facilities be provided in accordance with the Plan.

Delete ss S1.1.3 & S2.1.3 (point 5).

Amend ss S1.1.4 & S2.1.4 (point 1) to require that any services and facilities be provided in accordance with the Plan.

257.13 Notes condition on Vehicle Parking in S2.5 should read ‘only if single storey’.

Agreed. Amend s S2.5 to correct drafting error.

257.14 Notes the significant shift from the current Plan in relation to commercial development at the Pinnacle, and Council’s policy of retaining the Springs as the commercial development node and the priority for developing visitor services and facilities.

The Trust has noted and considered Council’s position in relation to development at the Springs and Pinnacle, and has endorsed referencing this in the Plan. The Plan notes the Trust’s preference for the development of ‘long-stay’ visitor facilities at the Springs, complemented by ‘short-stay’ facilities at the Pinnacle (s 8.3.1).

Amend s 8.2.3 to reference the current policy position of the Hobart City council in relation to commercial development in the Park.

158



257 Cont’d

4A 257.15 Considers that the extension of the Pinnacle Specific Area is relatively small, difficult topography and is located within an area designated as high ‘Visual Sensitivity’, and appears to conflict with the intent to minimise visual impact of any development, while Issue 5, P5.1 (Table S2.6) may be impossible to satisfy. Suggests that Plan should provide a realistic opportunity for development in this area.

It is acknowledged that the Pinnacle area provides particular difficulties in relation to development, particularly larger scale, given its sensitivity, climate and high visibility. The Plan expands the area available for consideration for such development, however it is important that stringent controls be maintained to ensure minimal adverse impact upon Park values. The criteria require that a proponent must demonstrate how the proposal avoids or remedies loss of visual values; this is fundamental given the importance and visibility of the Park’s landscape. This necessarily invites consideration of the status quo, however does not prevent change. The proponent may also prepare a Visual Impact Analysis that objectively considers the impact of any proposal. It is acknowledged that the current wording prevents ‘any’ impact, and that this reduces the potential for some development.

Amend ss S1.6 & S2.6 (Issue 5, P5.1) to clarify that any visual intrusions must be demonstrated to minimise or remedy any adverse impacts on the visual character of the area.

4B 257.16 Suggests rewording of Issue 6, to replace A6.2–A6.5 with one Acceptable Solution requiring either a risk statement or plan by an accredited person or from the Tasmania Fire Service. Suggests there is no subsequent need for an associated Performance Criteria (P6.2–P6.5).

Refer discussion in 257.8. Amend Table 5 (Issue 8, A8.2), S1.6 (Issue 6(b)) & S2.6 (Issue 6(b)) to incorporate the requirements of Sections E1.6.3, E1.6.4 and E1.6.5 of the Bushfire Prone Areas Code, inclusive of the relevant performance criteria.

6 257.17 Notes the Plan should reference the most recent vegetation and threatened species mapping of the face of the Mountain as part of the HCC Flora and Fauna Identification and Assessment Process.

Noted. Amend s 6.2.3 to reference the flora and fauna mapping undertaken by the Hobart City Council.

159



257 Cont’d

4A 257.18 Concerned that the proposed heritage provisions offer little surety of process and are likely to cause uncertainty around the management of cultural values within the Park. Suggests that the treatment of the historic cultural heritage in the Plan should provide: clear information on the location, values and significance of historic sites; clear exemptions for routine maintenance works; clear thresholds are required that identify when a conservation management plan is required; and greater recognition that the appropriateness of any conservation works are to be determined by the ability to retain and promote the cultural significance of the place. Also suggests that the Trust should simply nominate any sites it has documented as being of State significance for inclusion in the Tasmanian Heritage Register.

Refer discussion in 257.4. The Plan notes the desire to list relevant sites on the State Heritage Register, and provides an aspiration to prepare management policies and protocols for all such listed sites.

Amend Table 5 (Issue 4, A4.2) and Tables S1.6 & S 2.6 (Issue 3, A3.2) to remove reference to cultural heritage sites ‘identified in this Management Plan’.


8 257.19 Notes that the HCC is not currently preparing a master plan for Fern Tree Park.

Noted. Amend s 8.3.3 to note that the master plan is not currently being prepared.

9 257.20 Notes that the Plan should conform with the approach advocated by the Greater Hobart Mountain Bike Master Plan that the default position for new tracks be multiple use.

The Mountain Bike Master Plan recognises the particular difficulties for management agencies managing areas of high conservation and/or social values to implement shared use policies, and consequently only recommended the policy of defaulting to shared use for tracks for local government authorities only. However the Plan provides for new tracks to be considered for multiple-use in accordance with the policy recommended by the Master Plan.

No change.

160



257 Cont’d

13 257.21 Suggests that s 13.5.6.3 be amended to provide a ‘catch all statement’ to allow the Council to exercise any of its statutory powers.

Under the Act, a statutory power may either be authorised by the Plan or be exercised by a body represented on the Trust in such manner as is authorized by the Act under which that body is constituted eg municipal authorities under the Local Government Act 1993. The Office of the Solicitor-General has advised that there is no problem with providing a generic clause that authorises the exercise of statutory powers by municipal councils represented on the Trust.

Amend s 13.5.6.3 to include a generic clause that authorises the exercise of statutory powers by municipal councils represented on the Trust.

App 3B 257.22 Notes that the provision that any proposal involving a site of cultural heritage shall require PAA is only listed in the appendix, yet the appendices are not part of the Plan. Suggests that the Trust include this requirement in the body of the Plan if it is so intended.

The Plan (s 4.4.2) requires a PAA to be submitted for all works, except where the Proposal Checklist (Appendix 3B) indicates there will be no negative impact upon Park values. However, as drafted, the Checklist indicates that a PAA will not be required only for routine maintenance works to heritage sites where the works are in accordance with an approved schedule. This reflects a higher threshold requirement for proposals for heritage sites that should be prescribed within the body of the Plan.


257.23 Considers that the check-list is onerous and unclear. Suggests that the list be amended to enable simpler questions and provide a simple indication of what activities to existing infrastructure are exempt from the need for a PAA without having to navigate the entire Plan.

As the Checklist is a mechanism for determining if a PAA is required, it needs to cover all the relevant issues. It is likely that most simple works will only require consideration of a few of the issues in the Checklist and for the rest the answer will be ‘No’. It is considered that the addition of explanatory notes in the Checklist will clarify when an issue will trigger ‘Yes’. If this proves insufficient, the Trust will prepare guidelines to assist with completion of the Checklist.

Amend Appendix 3B to incorporate additional notes to clarify how users should assess the management issues.

161



257 Cont’d

App 3C 257.24 Suggests reformatting to allow mitigation measures to be included against potential impacts to allow easy consideration of mitigation measures.

Section 6 of Appendix 3C is necessarily in two parts, with Part 1 providing for an initial impact assessment to be completed by the proponent in order for the Trust to determine the level of the PAA required. Part 2 provides for a risk assessment based upon the mitigation measures proposed to address the impacts. It is acknowledged that it will be easier to complete (and assess) the final table if the initial assessment and the mitigation measures are on the same row of the same table. A spreadsheet version of the Impact Assessment and Proposed Management table will be made available to anyone required to prepare a PAA.

No change.

257.25 Notes concern regarding the Trust’s capacity to administer and assess the PAA process in a timely and cost effective manner.

The Checklist was incorporated into the PAA process to help clarify when a PAA is required. As the Checklist will be completed by the proponent, and does not have to be submitted to the Trust, it should reduce the workload on Trust staff. The Trust will only become involved if there is a positive response to any of the any of the issues in the Checklist. The process seeks to encourage agencies to submit ‘works schedule’ PAAs ie that cover regular or recurring site and process specific maintenance activities over a period of time, to allow for a permit to be issued for the works to be carried out without an approval being required in each instance. Permit conditions may be reviewed and varied from time to time by the Trust in consultation with the proponent.

Amend Appendix 3A to clarify that a single permit can be issued for recurring maintenance works.

162



257 Cont’d

App 3C 257.26 Concerned that Attachment 1 (Step 2) identifies change per se is identified as a hazard (particularly under ‘Cultural Values/Assets’) class, and necessitates the consideration of any change as negative, despite potential benefits. Suggests that the descriptors be revised to ensure consistency across the value classes, ensuring that the consequence rating is applied to the potential outcome, rather than prescribing any change to be negative.

It is generally agreed that uses and developments in the Park will be proposed because the proponent believes they will have some benefit, however this still requires the objective assessment of the Trust. While the PAA does consider the benefits of the proposed activity, the risk assessment matrix (in Attachment 1, Step 2) presumes that any change will have a negative impact, and then considers how to mitigate the impact.

Amend the text in Appendix 3C (Attachment 1, Step 2) to make it clear that only changes that result in a negative impact are assigned a consequence rating.

258 4A, 8 258.1 Supports development of visitor centre at, and limitation of commercial development to, the Springs as ‘natural hub’: better climate than Pinnacle; improved signs and information; provision of nature trails.


No change.

4B 258.2 Suggests keeping infrastructure at Pinnacle to a minimum for purposes of shelter.

The long-term rationalisation and eventual removal of the telecommunications facilities are recommended in the Plan (s 6.4.3.1). The layout of the Pinnacle is not specifically addressed in the Plan, given the potential for commercial development to guide this process. Also refer discussion in section 4.

No change.

258.3 Opposed to cable-car: incompatible with Park’ natural, cultural and landscape values; expensive for locals; vegetation clearance; poor weather; doubtful viability; poor access to walking tracks.


8, 9 258.4 Supports retention of public and recreational access to Pinnacle Road, with provision of access via snow-vehicle when road is closed.

Refer discussion in section 4. Provision of a shuttle-bus during snow periods is problematic given limited demand, however the Plan supports the implementation of the Trust’s Sustainable Transport System policy, which recommends investigation of a year-round shuttle-bus system.

No change.

163



258 Cont’d

8, 9 258.5 Notes that Park’s mere existence provides economic benefit (KDO, s 8.4.1), along with variety of social, community, recreation and scientific benefits.

Noted and agreed. The Park exists for its own intrinsic value, however also engenders a range of experiences for, and responses from, the community and Park visitors. The Park also has a role to play in providing economic benefit, and the Plan seeks to provide for this while protecting the values for which the Park is reserved.

No change.

259 4A 259.1 Supports development of restaurant and visitor at Springs (old hotel site), with the retention of existing hut.


No change.

4B, 9 259.2 Opposes cable-car: ugly; access in poor weather; adequacy of Pinnacle Road.


259.3 Supports retention of Pinnacle Road, and provision of all-weather bus during road closures.


No change.

260 4B, 9 260.1 Opposes cable-car: conflict with values and objectives in Plan; visually intrusive; vegetation clearance; potential weed invasion; Pinnacle Road is adequate; impact upon ‘wildness’.


261 4B, 9 261.1 Opposes cable-car: ugly; unnecessary; uneconomic.


262 4A, 4B 262.1 Supports approved development of Springs in preference to cable-car to Pinnacle: beauty of design; sheltered from weather; easy access; spiritual nature of Pinnacle.


No change.

164



263 4, 4B 263.1 Opposes removal of existing prohibitions on commercial development within Park: lack of commercial development is an asset and a reason for Mountain’s attraction given it is a point of difference.


264 4A 264.1 Supports low impact development of Springs on basis of retention of existing huts and free facilities.


No change.

4B, 9 264.2 Opposes cable-car: ‘destructive eye-sore’; inappropriate and intrusive; need to protect beauty for future generations.


Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 …...Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 Report...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 …...Draft Wellington Park Management Plan 2012 Report...