Media release – Residents Opposed to the Cable Car (ROCC),  22 October 2021

MORE GROUNDS OF REFUSAL TO BE CONSIDERED IN CABLE CAR APPEAL

The Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT) has accepted the Residents Opposed to the Cable Car (ROCC) application to ‘enlarge’ the Grounds of Refusal of the kunanyi cable car and these additional grounds will now be considered as part of the cable car appeal proceedings.

Applications to enlarge that were lodged by other joined parties have also been accepted and a pre-mediation conference will be held next Wednesday (27 October), to explore the notion of mediating a resolution to the many separate grounds of refusal.

“We welcome the RMPAT ruling to accept our additional grounds for refusing approval of the cable car,” said Vica Bayley, spokesperson for ROCC.

“The 21 grounds of refusal that were confirmed by the Hobart City Council are a comprehensive rejection of the cable car and its mass tourism complex at the Pinnacle, but this ruling means more issues will now be heard in the appeal.

“Additional issues include the impacts of sewage and odour, the destruction of masked-owl nesting trees and the visual impact of the development, as viewed from Hobart’s suburbs.

An appeal hearing has been set for February 28 next year and is expected to take approximately three weeks. Given the scale of the development’s impacts and the foundational nature of many of the grounds of refusal, it would appear there is not much room to mediate in a way that delivers a resolution to the appeal.

“This is a massive, private commercial project planned for a sensitive, much-loved public reserve. It’s been found to fail 21 planning and management rules and now others will be considered by the tribunal.

“While we’ll look at any additional information brought forward by the proponent and engage in good faith, we see little prospect for successful mediation or the appeal overturning all 21 grounds of refusal.

“Again we urge the proponent to recognise the incompatibility of mass tourism on a public mountain reserve and the community cost of its appeal. Again we suggest it walks away from the appeal and leaves the mountain alone for good.”