DOWN TO THE WIRE

CABLE CAR PLANS HIT ANOTHER HURDLE

THE state planning tribunal has backed Hobart City Council’s demands for more information on the Mt Wellington cable car proposal.

Mt Wellington Cable Car Company’s 2019 development application said there were no Aboriginal heritage sites close to the base station or tower locations.

The council asked for the company’s report on the issue and then found out the area had never been properly assessed.

The company appealed against the local authority’s request for further information but that was rejected by the planning tribunal.

THE proposal to build a cable car to the summit of Mt Wellington has been dealt another setback.

The state planning tribunal has ruled Hobart City Council’s demands for more information about the project’s impact on Aboriginal heritage are both lawful and reasonable.

The Mt Wellington Cable Car Company lodged a development application with the council in June 2019 with a statement that there were “no Aboriginal heritage sites within proximity to the Base Station or tower locations”.

Council asked for a copy of the “desktop assessment” which included the statement in June 2019, and it was provided in January 2020. But it included an important qualification, that while there were no known sites, nobody had checked.

“The development area has never been comprehensively assessed for Aboriginal heritage and the Aboriginal heritage values of the area are therefore unknown,” it said.

The company took the council to the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal, saying it had already provided a sufficient response; the council’s request was invalid; and too late. The council responded the company hadn’t answered reasonable questions satisfactorily.

Tribunal chair Marica Duvnjak rejected both of the company’s grounds of appeal and said the additional information requested by the council remained outstanding and directed it to be provided.

Hobart City Council general manager Nick Heath welcomed the decision. “We’ll await the required information from the applicant in order to continue the assessment process.”

MWCC chairman Chris Oldfield said the company was examining its options in relation to tribunal decision and council requests for more information.

“One of our main concerns was that to meet council’s request would require a much more intrusive on-site survey with accompanying disturbance of the land and we did not believe it was appropriate to do that prior to approval of our DA,” he said.

The council is also waiting for further information about bushfire hazard management and the extent of vegetation clearance required for the purpose of bushfire management. Once it is satisfied with those responses and the planning application is deemed complete, the project can proceed to seek public comment.