Luxury camp inside Walls of Jerusalem WHA with heli access

[gayet]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-26/lake-malbena-development-in-wilderness-heritage-area-voted-down/10849912

ABC News article.

[Son of a Beach]

I heard a very brief snippet on the radio news about this on the way home. I couldn't believe I'd heard it right, until I checked news websites and here after getting home. Did anybody here attend the meeting? Anything extra to report?

If he does not appeal (or if he appeals and loses), I wonder what will be done with the lease?

If Mr Hackett wants to regain any of the credibility he used to have with the Tasmanian people, he should dispose of the lease (or perhaps both of the leases). Perhaps he could have them annulled. Or give them to the Tasmanian aboriginal community.

I think the Mercury has generally done a good job of reporting on this one (from what I've read here - I don't subscribe), however, I do wish they wouldn't say that they the proposal was for a standing camp. They should say that it purported to be for a standing camp, or some such.

The news page at https://hallsisland.org/ has been updated.

PS. The FlyLife forum (where a very extensive discussion on the issue has been occurring) is offline for upgrades today. Terrible timing!

[bogholesbuckethats]

There were a lot of speakers and each one expressed their points effectively. All were opposed.

The proponents speech prior to the vote was mainly based on attacking green groups and conservationists and had little to do with the DA. The mayor had to tell the proponent to "get to and keep to the point and no more nasty comments" Not a very good look..

Some guy called Hairy yelled out from the crowd and told him to get back to the DA

The police were asked to attend to make sure it didn't get out of hand (not sure what they were expecting).

I also wonder what will happen with the lease if it does not proceed. Giving it to TLC or TAC would make sense, or maybe the mountain hut preservation society.

[Nuts]

If Mr Hackett wants to regain any of the credibility he used to have with the Tasmanian people, he should dispose of the lease (or perhaps both of the leases). Perhaps he could have them annulled. Or give them to the Tasmanian aboriginal community.

He could revert to the original plans for a walk-in camp based op?

As for his standing.. shrug, he tried.. I doubt we'll be seeing or hearing much of some of these other EOI proponents, the bigger, slicker fish.

[L_Cham_67]

The proponents speech prior to the vote was mainly based on attacking green groups and conservationists and had little to do with the DA. The mayor had to tell the proponent to "get to and keep to the point and no more nasty comments" Not a very good look..

Is it bad if I feel immense satisfaction at that?

[Son of a Beach]

He is clearly out of touch with reality if he thinks the majority of opponents are just green groups and conservationists. In reality it is the common and garden variety anglers who are the main group of opponents. Ie, his peers! And bushwalkers who are not necessarily associated with greens.

It is just that green and conservation groups are the louder voices, as they are particularly well organised for precisely this sort of thing.

[tastrax]

... I doubt we'll be seeing or hearing much of some of these other EOI proponents, the bigger, slicker fish.

I definitely wouldn't bet on that, Mr Hackett is small fry compared to some of the other companies that have EOI projects in the pipeline. Some already have Federal Government grants for their projects (but no planning approvals yet!).

[lefroy]

The level of contempt this government shows for our state makes me sick. To gift a piece of OUR wilderness for a commercial development that financially benefits such a small operation shows that our government still has no concept of what is an acceptable way to capitalise on what our state can offer the world.
As minister for parks, Will Hodgman should hang his head in shame for allowing the corruption of the review process installed to protect the sanctity of places he is employed to defend.
Today is a great result but is only the tip of the iceberg. The next state and federal elections need to be used to show that corruption will not be tolerated and that our wilderness is not for sale.
rant over...

[Nuts]

I definitely wouldn't bet on that, Mr Hackett is small fry compared to some of the other companies that have EOI projects in the pipeline..

Yeah, that is the point, and if these bigger businesses can avoid a public spotlight i'm sure they will try. If not it could just as easily be a media rep, CEO , someone two steps removed from 'ownership' or personal scrutiny. Simply their job to get whatever they can out of those enabling these opportunities.

Good outcome and good on the immense effort.

[vertigrator]

It makes me wonder how much Daniel was told by the Liberal government that they would help him get his EOI approved no matter what. I feel a bit sorry for him in that he seems to have been completely misled as much as the whole process was by a government hell bent on getting things approved rather than following good thorough processes.

[bogholesbuckethats]

It makes me wonder how much Daniel was told by the Liberal government that they would help him get his EOI approved no matter what. I feel a bit sorry for him in that he seems to have been completely misled as much as the whole process was by a government hell bent on getting things approved rather than following good thorough processes.

Yes I agree, I guess they were hoping that some of the documentation never made it out there. Thankfully the CHC made that information public and we could all see how shonky the RAA is.


EDIT: As expected the proponent will appeal the decision "in due course"

[taswegian]

The tribunal is the final say here and they will only look at the facts, if the boxes are ticked, the relevant clauses are satisfactorily addressed and personal, emotive feelings towards the wilderness will not even feature on their assessment.
It will be interesting, but I could see them overturn council on this, so any input will need to be thoughtfully constructed with the full planning scheme in mind.
I constantly argue with planners a clause does not make a planning scheme, yet they continue to play on a single clause in the scheme to deny permit.

Applications must address social, economic and environmental issues.
The social and environmental impact is the key, IMO, to argue here.
The applicant will have the opportunity to address any shortcomings in his argument.
Only those who opposed can have further opportunity to add to their arguments against.

I applaud councillors for their decision.
All ready there's cry from developers, businesses to take planning out of the hands of the councils.
This will only strengthen their argument and resolve. The government has mooted such in the past.

As far as planning goes, the greater majority of scheme content is driven by fads, more so by the 'fad of the day'.
I've been around long enough to see changes that have no scientific or technical aspects but are purely aimed at suiting perceived community (read developers) interests of the day.
Won't bore with details, happy to, but that is Fact.

As such, this is why principles that once saw our wilderness areas (for egs) are now eroded or removed as those with no care for others see advantage and take it for personal benefit.

Edit. It is common practise to spruik investment, potential to employ xxx full time employment, invest $xxx dollars into the economy.
These are ticket item features all sides of pro development use and like to hear.
I'm yet to see any of these qualified with real figures.
It's mostly 'potential'.
I once queried this but never received an answer.
My 40 jobs a year could be viewed as 40 full time jobs for one year as opposed to 40 jobs for one person for a year.
There's creativity flowing in any development application. I know that from experience.

[iaindtiler]

From Luke Martin's (tourism guru!!!) Twitter feed;
Central Highlands Council had 10 candidates for 9 positions in the #lgtas elections last year. The 9th candidate elected received 41 votes. 4 of the 9 successful candidates were elected with less than 100 votes. Some context on yesterday’s Lake Malbena decision. #politas.

While true, it is surely irrelevant. I for one am proud of my council. The CHC did the job asked of them , unlike the 2 other levels of government. It's saddening and makes me angry to see the attacks now leveled at the councillors. Would love to see Luke Martin's response to his favorite local public park, being made private, degraded and regularly heavily noise polluted. Makes me want to work harder at stopping this development at its next stage.

[bogholesbuckethats]

From the Tasmanian Times

Wilderness Society welcomes Lake Malbena appeal
ByThe Wilderness SocietyPosted on February 27, 2019
The Wilderness Society (TWS) has welcomed the apparent announcement by the proponent that he intends to appeal of the rejection of the Lake Malbena helicopter-accessed, luxury tourism proposal by Central Highlands Council. (The development was approved by state and federal assessments, with TWS challenging the federal approval in the Federal Court, but was required to also be considered by the local council.)



As it stands, the state-based Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) is a non-statutory process that does not guarantee public consultation and offers no community rights of appeal. Current intentions regarding the Statewide Planning Scheme is to remove local council engagement in development decisions in Tasmania’s reserves, if approved via an RAA.



“It is entirely within the right of the proponent to appeal this decision and we welcome the fact he has this ability,” said Tom Allen, acting campaign manager.



“It serves to highlight the failure of a state-based assessment that offers no such rights to the community, and the Hodgman Government’s intention to strip local council oversight from developments in parks and reserves.”



“The right of appeal was something not allowed with the Expression of interest Assessment or the RAA, an internal in-house departmental assessment from which the community was prevented from even seeing, let alone commenting on. And now we’re being told that communities should have a say with their councils either. It’s scary.



“Rights of appeal lead to better, more rigorous decisions because it effectively crowd-sources solutions from local knowledge. The RAA ignored or didn’t even seek the advice of Government’s own expert advisors, three of whom are now explicitly opposed to this proposal.



“This isn’t about opposing development, this is about doing wilderness tourism properly, transparently and responsibly. Yesterday in Bothwell, even the councillors who voted in favour of the proposal did so not because of its merits but because of the possible financial impact an appeal could have on the Council’s financial position.



“The proposed planning scheme provisions leaves councils and local communities worse off and, if the state government gets its way, the planning role of local councils will be entirely removed so that any shonky development simply gets up without any sort of community input,” said Mr Allen.



Here’s a summary of how we got here:

The Government approves Lake Malbena development via a secret, non-statutory Expression of Interest process (EOI);

On the basis of this assessment, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan is secretly and specifically changed to facilitate this proposal;

The Parks and Wildlife Service works with the proponent to complete Reserve Activity Assessment, with no assessment of impacts on World Heritage values like wilderness, no advice from the State’s own statutory advisory bodies (who oppose the proposal) and no opportunity for community consultation, this assessment was not publicly accessible until it was leaked. Approval is granted on the basis of compliance with the amended Management Plan;

The Federal Government waives through the development as not needing approval under Federal Environment law, against the advice of three statutory advisory bodies, the National parks and Wildlife Advisory council, the Australian Heritage Council and Tasmanian Aboriginal Heritage Council;

Local council rejects the Development Application, lamenting the failure of previous government assessment processes and citing non-compliance with the planning scheme.

[myrtlegirl]

Central Highlands Council today received notification from the tribunal that an appeal has been lodged about their decision to not allow the Halls Island proposal.

[iaindtiler]

As people who lodged an objection with the council, can we do anything now with regards to objections to the tribunal? Cheers.

[bogholesbuckethats]

As people who lodged an objection with the council, can we do anything now with regards to objections to the tribunal? Cheers.

this is what I found on the RMPAT website.

4.4.1 APPLICATIONS TO JOIN: Applications to join proceedings should be made before
the preliminary conference is held (See Practice Direction 3.5 for information on
making an application to join). Applications to join can be made at any time;
however, lateness in making an application may be a relevant factor in refusing the
application. Directions allowing parties an opportunity to comment on any
application to join are set. Short timeframes apply to resolving applications to join.

The date for a preliminary hearing has been set.

Monday, 25 March 2019
10.00 am - 20/19P - Halls Island, Lake Malbena, Walls of Jerusalem National Park
Visitor Accommodation (Standing Camp)

3.6 APPLICATION TO BE MADE A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS: The relevant section relating to
an application to be made a party is Section 14 of the Resource Management & Planning
Appeal Tribunal Act 1993. A person wishing to make an application to join proceedings
should use the form contained on the Tribunal’s website. The application must contain
information addressing the requirements of Section 14. Please note that a fee is charged for
the making of an application to join. The Tribunal’s website contains details of the current
fee. Tribunal will issue directions for timeframes for other parties to make any submissions
regarding any application to join.

The fee associated with joining the appeal under section 14 is $164.32

It's pretty safe to assume that the Wilderness Society and the EDO will join the appeal. It's possible that other groups could also join (maybe TAC, NPWAC,AA).
I'm sure someone on here has a much better understanding of proceedings but it might be better for individuals to spend their money on supporting EDO instead of joining the appeal themselves. I will post here as soon as I know more.

[iaindtiler]

Thanks much for that information.

[bogholesbuckethats]

From the Mercury this afternoon.

Central Highlands Council yet to explain Malbena refusal
EMILY BAKER, Mercury
March 25, 2019 1:47pm
Subscriber only
THE Central Highlands Council is yet to tell a Launceston tourism operator why it blocked his application to build a helicopter-accessed standing camp within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

The council rejected the controversial Lake Malbena proposal at a meeting in Bothwell late last month on the grounds it did not comply with parts of the area’s planning scheme, including its bushfire management plan.

Proponent Daniel Hackett’s development application attracted more than 1300 submissions in opposition to the project. He has appealed the rejection in the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal.


At a preliminary appeal hearing today, lawyer Adam Beeson, acting for the council, asked for a further fortnight to settle its grounds for refusal.

Registrar Jarrod Bryan granted the council 10 days.

The Wilderness Society, Tasmanian National Parks Association, Richard Webb and Paul Smith have joined as parties to the appeal and will be represented by the Environmental Defenders Office. They were given a further week to potentially broaden the grounds of refusal.

Project proponent Daniel Hackett was represented by lawyer Shaun McElwaine.

The five-day hearing was set for the week of May 27.

A separate challenge to the project will be heard in the Federal Court in Melbourne tomorrow.

The Wilderness Society, again represented by the Environmental Defenders Office, will challenge the federal Environment Department’s process of approving the development in the Federal Court.

[north-north-west]

THE Central Highlands Council is yet to tell a Launceston tourism operator why it blocked his application to build a helicopter-accessed standing camp within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.

The council rejected the controversial Lake Malbena proposal at a meeting in Bothwell late last month on the grounds it did not comply with parts of the area’s planning scheme, including its bushfire management plan.

Sounds like they have told him.

[Lophophaps]

The Development Application (DA) lacks details, breaches laws and cannot be considered in its present form. The DA needs to be resubmitted to be compliant. The DA is of a rather poor standard. This and many other points were made in a number of submissions. Daniel knows why but does not accept the reasons. It's very unfortunate that a smallish regional council now has to bear the cost of the hearing.

[wildwanderer]

Glad the council had the courage to stand up.

Hopefully there is enough legal funding by all group s opposed to stay the course

Not that I like that civil legal proceedings comes down to who has the most cash in many cases.

[Lophophaps]

Glad the council had the courage to stand up.

Hopefully there is enough legal funding by all group s opposed to stay the course

Not that I like that civil legal proceedings comes down to who has the most cash in many cases.

It was a hard decision for council, but the evidence was clear - the proposal lacked merit on a number of grounds. Agree, quite often the party with the deepest pockets wins. However, I have found that the possibility of adverse publicity leads to a resolution in favour of the smaller party. Also, the cost may be such that the party with more funds settles, which could be what is called "go away money."

For example, a consumer has discovered gross negligence in an entity causing loss to the consumer. The consumer commences proceedings, and the entity, the respondent, denies everything but will settle out of court as a gesture of good will and on a no-admission basis. The settlement is confidential. I have had a lot of success like this, including at least one ASX top 100 company. Halls Island is not like this, and Daniel's poor form is a probably matter of public record; I suspect that submissions are subject to FOI. Submissions have been circulated in the bushwalking, angling and conservation communities.

[iaindtiler]

From the Central Highlands Council March newsletter. Words from Mayor , Loueen Triffitt

[rangersac]

Bravo Loueen, summed it up perfectly.

[bogholesbuckethats]

The judge presiding over the federal court challenge that kicked off today is Debra Mortimer. A bit of digging reveals that she has a lot of experience in environmental law and also represented Bob Brown in a case against Forestry Tasmania, concerning the Wielangta forest. I was unable to attend the video link but I was told that the judge had questioned how one could privatise an area within the TWWHA. Look forward to hearing more about how it went over the next few days.

[Lophophaps]

Bravo Loueen, summed it up perfectly.

Well said. Council has done better than state and federal politician. This was and is a complicated matter that should have been knocked back elsewhere. The balanced, transparent council process is one that should be adopted at all levels.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Anyone that wasn't able to attend the council meeting in February and would like to hear what happened can now listen to the full recording (over three hours long). The audio quality is average at best.

http://centralhighlands.tas.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/February%202019.mp3

[peregrinator]

The Tasmanian National Parks Association states the case for the funding that's need to defend the council's decision:

https://tnpa.org.au/defending-councils-lk-malbena-decision/

In particular, it is noted that:

"This appeal is not just about Lake Malbena. It will have significant implications for the processes by which these tourism developments within our precious wilderness areas gain approval."

[johnrs]

More on the Central Plateau helicopter accessed resort.

Now two legal process underway, a Federal Court hearing and a Tasmanian planning appeals tribunal, details on the Flylife links below (courtesy of Greg French) expensive legal actions so support welcomed
https://flylife.com.au/forum/topic/why- ... ost-758733

and continued on the next Flylife post

JohnRS