Luxury camp inside Walls of Jerusalem WHA with heli access

[bushwalker zane]

I also received that email. I will be working on the 26th I wish I could go, the more numbers to meetings like this the better.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Investors in Wild Drake Pty Ltd.

[myrtlegirl]

Investors in Wild Drake Pty Ltd.

Thanks for that BHBH.

So these are the ASIC listed investors in Wild Drake, which has 460,000 shares (share value not known):

- Daniel Hackett has 63.1% of the shares, which are non-beneficially held (i.e. he holds the shares for the benefit of someone else).

- Anne Florence Downie has 8.7% of the shares, beneficially held. A Google search throws up this name in association with long-held family farm properties in the Central highlands.

- Neville John and Dorothy Mary Topfer hold 14.1% of the shares, also non-beneficial. Mr Topfer's name comes up as being a lawyer for several decades. Ms Topfer may be an author.

- Nicholas Lindsay and Victoria Sandra D'Antoine hold 14.1%, of the shares, also non-beneficial. Mr D'Antoine may be a grazier and charity donor.

It's quite interesting that over 90% of the shares are held by 'front-men'.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Halls Island rezoned after tourism proposal received
EMILY BAKER, State Political Reporter, Mercury
February 20, 2019 9:04pm
Subscriber only
A PROPOSAL for a luxury standing camp on an island within the Wilderness World Heritage Area partly led to that area being rezoned to allow for development, new documents reveal.

Emails released to the Mercury under Right to Information laws show the Tasmanian Government rezoned Halls Island in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park from “wilderness” to “self-reliant recreation” in 2016 specifically because it had received a proposal for the helicopter-accessed tourism development on the Lake Malbena site.

Emails sent in late 2016 show the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment told its federal counterparts it had changed the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area management plan “to allow for development proposals submitted through ... [the State Government’s expressions of interest] process”.

All eco-tourism proposals that benefited from the TWWHA boundary changes — except for Halls Island — were redacted in the documents given to the Mercury. The State Government on Wednesday did not answer where else within the TWWHA had been rezoned.

An email sent last year from a DPIPWE staff member to employees within the department’s media team said the agency believed it was not appropriate to class Halls Island as wilderness because of a longstanding lease on the site and the presence of an existing historic hut.

“In addition, as the proposal had passed through the first stage of the [expressions of interest] process ... this was sufficient for the concept to be regarded as something that should be allowed for under the planning settings of the new TWWHA plan, noting that it would need to undergo an assessment,” the email said.


An artist’s impression of one of the huts in the proposed Lake Malbena eco-tourism standing camp. Picture: CUMULUS STUDIO
The Halls Island proposal was ultimately approved by the Federal Environment Department last year against the advice of national heritage and Aboriginal advisory bodies partly because the area was zoned “self-reliant recreation” rather than “wilderness”.

Halls Island proponent Daniel Hackett said the emails suggested the rezoning had received the tick of approval from then-federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg and was therefore “correct and appropriate”.

“To paraphrase Bob Brown, ‘wilderness and huts is a non-sequitur’; it is a contradiction to have wilderness, an existing hut, landscape modification and a long history of use occurring in the same location,” Mr Hackett said on Wednesday.


Halls Island development proponents Simone and Daniel Hackett.
“The minor boundary modification obviously addressed this and recognised Halls Island for what it is.”

But Tasmanian Labor senator Anne Urquhart labelled the “circular process [of approval] ... comical”.

“The Commonwealth Government must urgently have a fresh look at the project and examine if actions are permissible within the wilderness zone,” Senator Urquart said.

The Wilderness Society, which is challenging the Federal Government’s process of approving the development next month in the Federal Court, called on Premier, Parks, Tourism and Heritage Minister Will Hodgman to pause assessments under way through the Liberals’ expressions of interest process until the TWWHA tourism master plan was complete.

The contract for that document was awarded in late December last year.

Wilderness Society acting state campaign manager Tom Allen said: “These emails confirm that the Government secretly changed the rules for managing World Heritage wilderness and that private commercial developments for vested interests are driving planning decisions, instead of the protection of natural and cultural heritage values.”

Tasmanian Greens Senator Nick McKim accused the Liberals of “putting profit over environment”.

“This is an outrageous abuse of the responsibility that governments have to look after one of the most precious wilderness areas in the world,” Senator McKim said.

[johnrs]

So Folks
Who are the mysterious backers?
and who did the high level lobbying of government?
And what will this all be worth to those backers when its onsold?
Some pretty fancy financial footwork here,
exempting some land then privatising the value created by the surrounding world heritage area
John

[Paul]

I know of a grazier in the Epping Forest area who has been heavily involved with Government previously !!!!!!

Paul.

[Son of a Beach]

So Folks
Who are the mysterious backers?
and who did the high level lobbying of government?
And what will this all be worth to those backers when its onsold?
Some pretty fancy financial footwork here,
exempting some land then privatising the value created by the surrounding world heritage area
John

Who has a reputation or history of:

• Manipulating the Tasmanian government into changing policies to suit their purposes
• Inexplicable secret back-room deals with the Tasmanian government to get exclusive rights
• Providing exclusive holiday/accommodation services in Tasmania for exceedingly wealthy people

[Paul]

It could be someone who has commercial developments and is also on the Tourism Council !!!!!

Paul

[bogholesbuckethats]

Big tick for wilderness island camp plans on Lake Malbena
EMILY BAKER, State Political Editor, Mercury
February 21, 2019 8:16pm
Subscriber only
THE Central Highlands Council looks set to approve a luxury standing camp development proposed for World Heritage-listed wilderness in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park.

Documents released ahead of next week’s vote on the Lake Malbena development show council contract planner Jacqui Tyson has recommended conditional approval of Wild Drake’s proposed helicopter-accessed standing camp because it substantially complied with the area’s planning scheme.

That was largely because it was allowed under the broader Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area management plan. That plan, the Mercury revealed on Thursday, was amended by the State Government in 2016 — specifically to allow for the Lake Malbena proposal.

The documents show the Central Highlands Council received 1346 representations on the proposed development, which would have four huts erected on Halls Island on Lake Malbena, and up to 240 helicopter flights scheduled into the Walls of Jerusalem each year.

Only two of the submissions were in support of the proposal.

A suggested approval condition was that the proposed helicopter landing site on the mainland near Halls Island be used only in association with the standing camp.

“Helicopters and the helicopter landing site must not be used for any other purpose and must altogether cease if the visitor accommodation use ends,” the agenda said.

As well, Ms Tyson recommended that the proponents would have to rehabilitate the site as necessary were the venture to end.

The bulk of objections to the proposal were assessed as outside the council’s remit.

“The majority of concerns raised in the very high number of representations … focus on whether or not the proposal should happen at all in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area,” the agenda said.

“This is a decision made by the Parks and Wildlife Service and the State Government as landowner.”

The proposal has received the go-ahead from the state and federal governments, but the Wilderness Society is challenging the federal Environment Department’s process of approval in the Federal Court next month.

The Central Highlands Council document said the development would not be able to proceed until that appeal was determined. The council’s special meeting will be held Tuesday in Bothwell.

[johnrs]

This is getting worse now.
There are indications that ther council process is a sham

See Greg Fench's comments from the Fly Life forums

Greg French replied: Why can't wilderness just be sacred... LAKE MALBENA!
The planner has had a maximum of 4 days since the close of submissions to consider the Malbena DA. Does anyone seriously believe that 1346 submissions (1344 against the proposal) can even be read in that time, let alone considered? The planner has stated that most of the submissions were outside the ‘remit’ of the DA process, but I can tell you categorically that many referred specifically to shortcomings in the DA itself. None of these shortcomings has been acknowledged.

To put the overwhelming nature of response to the Malbena DA in context, it has been widely reported that the Royal Commission into banking received just 10,000 responses across all of Australia. I’ve spent a lot of time in wilderness management, and as far as I can tell the Malbena response is unprecedented for an ‘insignificant development’ in a ‘rarely visited’ corner of wilderness. This is because everyone knows that it is really the beginning of the end of our national park system. The precedents mean that the minister alone is now free to rezone and privatise whatever part of the WHA he likes without consultation with anyone at all.

The bulk of the CHC decision says that the DA has been approved because it was already approved in the PWS’s RAA process. That was also the rationale in the EPBC process. It’s so circular as to be comical. Why ask for new submissions at all? Especially if you are not going to table the main objections and publically address them? The council has a legal (not just moral) obligation to consider all submissions, but apparently due process is an old fashioned concept.

This, then, is how democracy is destroyed in the era of Trump. The state government and the proponent are complicit and need to be held to account.

The battle is far from over, however. The council has to vote, and we only have to win over one or two votes to sway things in the favour of due process. I urge everyone to phone all the councillors individually – this really can make a difference! (All the councillors’ phone numbers are on the Central Highlands Council website.)

Remember too that the special meeting of council which decides the fate of the DA will be held at Bothwell on Tuesday 26 February (next week). It’s a public meeting and respondents to the DA have been invited to talk (under strict conditions). It needs to be treated as a rally – be there. Again numbers will count, both to influence wavering councillors and also to impress upon state and federal politicians that this issue matters. (There is a federal election looming, and if the Liberals win it’s open slather for development right across the Western Lakes.)

If the council approves the DA, there is a right of appeal. This is the form explaining the process:

www.rmpat.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_ ... l-LUPA.pdf

The appeal will cost money – a nominal application fee plus representation (lawyer) costs. But if one person lodges an appeal, others can add their voices to it. There are lots of grounds for appeal, and we would probably win.

I simply don’t have the means to pay for an appeal myself, so I’m imploring someone else to put their hand up. Any takers?
Maybe crowdsourcing??
Anyone with any expericence with this??

Johnrs

[tastrax]

I am assuming this is the link to appeals documents

https://bit.ly/2EmrxXK

Maybe the Environmental Defenders Office may be able to assist - http://www.edotas.org.au

[myrtlegirl]

I am going to the Central Highlands Council meeting on Tues 26th Feb, and I have 2 spots in my car, leaving from Hobart about 8.45am on the day. PM me for my phone number if you'd like a lift.

[johnrs]

Just sickening
Here is a link to the private certifiers approval for Mr Hackets development in the Walls of Jerusalem
The process represents theft of a public assett using the tools of government
The assessors report is in the agenda to the coming council meeting,
it's long
Here is the link http://centralhighlands.tas.gov.au/wp-c ... y-2019.pdf
This is going to lead to a lot of strife
John rs

[Jennyrun]

What is the easiest (shortest) way into Lake Malbena with a 2wd vehicle as access?

[Son of a Beach]

I won't be able to make the CHC meeting (working). I skimmed through their assessment report and read a few bits and pieces until I literally started to feel sick. I didn't sleep much that night!

It appears from the report that the approval is a done deal already. Anywhere where an objector has disagreed with the proponents view of things, the report merely states that it complies. Ie, they have assumed that the proponent is correct and justified, and that the objector is incorrect and ignorant. ...or perhaps they simply couldn't be bothered doing any real assessment.

Off the top of my head, two such instances in the report were:

1. Where the plan says that buildings must not be constructed on ridge tops, the developer doesn't mention ridge tops, but says that they buildings will not be visible. However, the location IS actually on the ridge along the middle of the island. Several people pointed this out in their objections - ie, this is CLEARLY against the planning code, but the report simply states that it complies with the code.

2. The other instance under the stormwater part of the code (6.7 from memory) the developer says that they will re-use stormwater, therefore it doesn't need to do anything to manage stormwater. One of my objections was that it is not physically possible for the developer to store and use all of the rain that would fall on the roofs of their proposed buildings, the vast majority of it (at least for 8 months of the year) would overflow their rainwater tanks and therefore be unmanaged stormater. The report ignored this and simply stated that the proposal complies with section 6.7 for stormwater. Again, this is clearly in breach of the code, and yet has been assessed as complying with the code.

So surely this is either incompetence or corruption.

They are clearly ignoring objections and stating that the proposal complies in at least these two cases, and probably many more. I couldn't read much more than that because it was becoming too stressful for me.

If anybody who is speaking at the CHC meeting can look into raising these points and other points where the objections have been effectively ignored, I'd be grateful.

The proponents should be made to address all of the objections to breaches of the planning code.

Oh, and at the end of the assessment where one of the only two items in favour of the development said that it complied with "UNESCO approved" management plan. Wow! So wrong on SO many levels! It is clearly in breach of the plan that UNESO approved. But that plan has been obsoleted by the government and been replaced with another plan that had no consultation and has NOT been endorsed by UNESCO. In fact, UNESCO were quite vocal about it being woefully inadequate!

[dee_legg]

I felt the same SOOB. Peaceful protest anyone?

[Paul]

Yes, peaceful protest for sure

Paul.

[Jennyrun]

The planning code says no clearing of native vegetation, yet the developer says they will clear native vegetation at both the standing camp and helipad!!!

Separately, am I right in saying that the proposed helipad site is not part of the lease? Hence still public land? Hence still a place to pitch a tent or two or three.

[tastrax]

The planning code says no clearing of native vegetation, yet the developer says they will clear native vegetation at both the standing camp and helipad!!!

Separately, am I right in saying that the proposed helipad site is not part of the lease? Hence still public land? Hence still a place to pitch a tent or two or three.

Absolutely a great place to pitch a tent or three!

[Rabid K9]

Just sickening
This is going to lead to a lot of strife

Are Tas Police going to be acting as the Hacketts own private security on this as well?

Seems like over other 'public' service is being offered to them.

[Lophophaps]

I have advised CHC that if approval is given I will be lodging a formal complaint with the Ombudsman. The complaint was drafted about two weeks ago and is ready to send as soon as approval is given. My main point is that the DA is illegal. It would greatly assist if I could add a few more points, like taking such a short time to read all the submissions (many pro formas), not addressing issues like land clearing and water disposal, and others. I'm happy to include such points in my compliant, or you can DIY.

If you have any points to include please send me a PM with brief details. There will be no attribution. I'm not near a computer much for the next week but will attempt to send the complaint out this week. I'll send copies of the complaint to anyone that asks for this in a PM.

One other issue. Somewhere above I think I read that there were going to be wildlife cameras on Halls Island. This seems to me to be a cover for security cameras. Ask if permission is needed and who is doing the wildlife study. This is not a DA issue, seems to be PAWS.

[Son of a Beach]

Are Tas Police going to be acting as the Hacketts own private security on this as well?

Seems like over other 'public' service is being offered to them.

It's worth noting the timing of the government re-drafting a new version of their anti-protest laws that were previously canned due to being unconstitutional. I can't help but think that they are being done specifically for projects like this right now, rather than for forestry this time.

[Son of a Beach]

Somewhere above I think I read that there were going to be wildlife cameras on Halls Island. This seems to me to be a cover for security cameras. Ask if permission is needed and who is doing the wildlife study. This is not a DA issue, seems to be PAWS.

In responding to requests for permission to visit Halls Island, Mr Hackett informs people that the island is closed to all visitors for now, and that there are cameras there to capture data for fauna studies. I suspect that the mention of the cameras is to scare people off. Whether the cameras actually exist or not, I don't know. I have my doubts as to whether they are there at all.

[bogholesbuckethats]

Council have opposed the DA 6-3

[Thornbill]

Council have opposed the DA 6-3

Good lord! Don't tell me proper scrutiny and process has been applied? The Libs, both State and Feds, won't like that

[Lophophaps]

Nice result. I strongly suspect that the non-pro forma submissions carried the day. Daniel will have to find another place, away from the WHA. King Island or the Simpson Desert appeal.

[potato]

This is great news. Yes I agree the non-pro forma submissions would have done most of the heavy lifting.

[Paul]

What next ? Does Daniel and his accomplicess have the right of appeal to the Planning Tribuneral ? ( spelling ? )

I would like to know if he has that right to appeal the Council decision.

Paul.

[doogs]

Great news. Well done to the council for seeing sense and understanding the impacts this proposal would have had

From The Mercury:

Central Highlands Council hosts special meeting to vote on Wild Drake’s controversial Lake Malbena proposal

UPDATED: SIX of nine Central Highlands councillors — including Mayor Loueen Triffitt — have rejected a proposal for a helicopter-accessed standing camp in the Wilderness World Heritage Area.

Cr Triffitt, Cr Anita Campbell, Cr Robert Cassidy, Cr Tony Bailey, Cr Julie Honner and Cr Anthony Archer this afternoon voted against approving the development application for the Halls Island proposal.

Those councillors, who voted against the advice of their planner, received hearty applause from attendees of the public meeting.

Many said they were concerned that it did not fit with the Parks and Wildlife Service’s standing camp policy.

Cr Cassidy said he had been “vomiting with anxiety” ahead of voting on the development application.

Many councillors said they were furious that the decision had been left with them after state and federal governments and departments had failed to do their “due diligence”.


EARLIER: The Central Highlands Council mayor says the proposal for a helicopter-accessed luxury camp in the Walls of Jerusalem National Park has been one of the most stressful issues her council has ever confronted.

Loueen Triffitt spoke this morning ahead of a special council meeting at Bothwell Town Hall to vote on Wild Drake’s controversial Lake Malbena proposal.

More than 1340 people objected to the proposal and about 100 attended this morning’s council meeting.

All who spoke ahead of the council vote — which will take place this afternoon — were against the development.

Most objected because of the 240 helicopter flights that would chopper in tourists staying at the proposed camp.


The proposed helipad site for the Lake Malbena development.
Many were concerned about stormwater and bushfire management.

All who argued the proposal went against the values of the Wilderness World Heritage Area.

The council’s planner, Jacqui Tyson, has recommended the proposal be approved, because it has already been through the Parks and Wildlife Service’s Reserve Activity Assessment process.

Cr Triffitt’s daughter, Angela, spoke against the proposal partly because of a lack of consultation with the Tasmanian Aboriginal people.

Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre chief executive Heather Sculthorpe and Aboriginal Heritage Council chairman Rodney Dillon also spoke against the proposal.

Mr Dillon said the state’s Aboriginals had been ignored in the process “ but this is not the first time this has happened — it has happened for 200 years”.

“This site is an ancient site and once lost we will never have it back,” Mr Dillon said.

“There wouldn’t be an Aboriginal person in Tasmania who would agree with this proposal.”

The Hackett family recently released the first artist’s impression of their proposed Lake Malbena eco-tourism standing camp. Picture: CUMULUS STUDIO
The Lake Malbena proposal involves four huts built on Halls Island. It has been approved by the state and federal governments largely because it fits within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area management plan.

The State Government changed the plan specifically to allow for the development.

[bogholesbuckethats]

What next ? Does Daniel and his accomplicess have the right of appeal to the Planning Tribuneral ? ( spelling ? )

I would like to know if he has that right to appeal the Council decision.

Paul.

Yes he has the right to appeal and that is what we are expecting to happen.