Hobart cable car shock revision; footprint shrunk to win-over planning umpire

The proponent of Hobart’s contentious $50m Mt Wellington cableway is expected to announce a shock revision of its plan, including slashing the size of the summit buildings.

Mt Wellington Cableway Company chair Chris Oldfield. Picture: Richard Jupe

The proponent of Hobart’s contentious $50m Mt Wellington ­cableway is expected to announce a shock revision of its plan, including slashing the size of the summit buildings.

In a manoeuvre designed to improve the project’s chances of success on appeal to the state’s planning umpire, the Mt Wellington Cableway Company is tipped to cut its summit building footprint by as much as half.

It is understood the project’s restaurant, on the kunanyi/Mt Wellington summit, will be axed, with the reduction in size to address concerns about scale and intensity. There is also a suggestion that the cable cars may be ­reduced in size.

Given the downscaling, the revised plan will not legally require fresh Hobart City Council approval, prompting claims the company is using a “loophole” to gain approval with the intention of expanding the buildings later.

Company chair Chris Oldfield would neither confirm nor deny the expected shift, tipped to be confirmed by Friday, following the failure of mediation between the company and its opponents.

“I’m not going to comment on anything we’re doing before RMPAT (the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal) at the moment – it would be inappropriate,” he said.

Asked about the expected reduction in scale, he said: “It would be inappropriate to comment whilst we’re going through the RMPAT process. We are still confident, still committed to the project and still going through the process … it’ll go to a hearing at some stage in the New Year.”

A letter from RMPAT to parties in the planning dispute sent on Tuesday confirms that the company “has foreshadowed the filing of a section 22 application with the tribunal” by Friday.

It is understood this section allows proponents to amend their development proposals, with any reduced scale not requiring a restart of the planning process.

Opponents of the project would then have 10 days to file a response to the changes, and the company then a further two days to address those responses.

Parties to the recent, failed mediation declined to comment, citing the confidentiality requirements of the process. However, there is concern that under the section 22 application, the broader public will not be given a chance to respond.

Hobart City Council in July rejected the project’s development application after an independent expert planning report found 21 grounds for refusal.