Mt Coot-tha Protection Alliance Inc.

Transcription

1 Mt Coot-tha Protection Alliance Inc. 40 Payne St, Auchenflower QLD th December 2018 Hon Dr Anthony Lynham Minster for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy PO Box City East QLD 4002 by cc Dear Dr Lynham, RE: Response to the draft Land Management Plan for the proposed Mount Coot-tha Zipline (LMP), prepared by Connolly Project Resources Group on behalf of the Brisbane City Council (BCC), November INTRODUCTION This submission provides a response to the draft Land Management Plan (LMP) for the Mt Coot-tha Zipline on the subject land described as lot 2 on SP241566, located at 200 Sir Samuel Griffith Drive, Mt Coot-tha. The MCPA is a local organisation of Brisbane residents, many of whom have provided professional advice in the disciplines of plant and animal ecology, visual impact assessment, bushfire risk and hazard assessment, heritage impact assessment, architecture, acoustic analysis, economics and town planning. This advice has been incorporated into our collective submission. The MCPA has submitted a detailed objection to the Zipline Development Application (BCC #A ), attached below as Appendix I. The two relevant documents guiding the production of an LMP are the (1) Operational Policy - Secondary use of Trust Land under the Land Act ref. PUX/901/209 v.6 (2 May 2017) and (2) the Land Management Planning for Reserves or Deeds of Grant in Trust - Information Kit. The latter document includes a list of six 'general criteria that departmental officers will use to assess the Land Management Plans. These criteria include: the impact of the proposed use on the strategic value of the site; the consistency of the proposal with the primary use of the land (if applicable); the impact of the proposal on the state's interests; 1

2 the degree of forward planning undertaken in relation to the site and the risk of incremental progression; the proposal's relationship with the Local Government planning scheme (Town Plan); and the degree of commerciality and exclusivity associated with the proposal. This feedback document addresses the above list of six criteria. 2.0 THE STRATEGIC VALUE OF THE SITE The Mt Coot-tha Forest and Botanic Garden have several strategic values, for many different reasons. The subject site is part of the 1600 hectare Mt Coot-tha Forest and has unique strategic values as a relatively large block of old-growth forest situated next to the heart of Brisbane. No other Australian capital city residents can enjoy such proximity to a wilderness experience. The old-growth forest was visited and occupied over millennia by the traditional owners, for whom the area is of great indigenous heritage significance. Mt Coot-tha is also an integral part of the contemporary image of Brisbane. Views to Mt Coot-tha from various vantage points allow us to orientate ourselves in the Brisbane landscape. Views from the Summit Lookout allow us to connect with our local heritage values and to survey the panorama at our feet, from the Islands of Moreton Bay, the City and suburbs, the winding Brisbane River, nearby Mt Gravatt, the Mt Tamborine plateau, the Border Ranges and even westward to the Great Dividing Range. The Mt Coot-tha Forest is not an isolated patch like other near-city forests, but lies at the eastern end of the D'Aguilar Range and is an integral part of a strategic wildlife corridor linking Brisbane with Mt Nebo, Mt Glorious and beyond. The forest has a high biodiversity value, including several rare or threatened species of flora and fauna. The people of Brisbane and their families and friends have long enjoyed the Mt Coot-tha Forest for its safe and convenient recreational values; for walking, cycling, horse-riding, bird-watching, picnics and viewing their surrounds from the Summit Lookout. 3.0 SIGNIFICANT REASONS TO REJECT THE DRAFT LMP The MCPA has reviewed the draft LMP and concluded that it is not a genuine Plan for Land Management, for the following key reasons: 3.1 A Plan in Isolation The ha of the subject land comprises about 37.5% of the Mt Coot-tha Forest. Despite claiming to take a 'whole of mountain' or 'holistic' approach, this LMP does not refer to the context or character of the balance of lots that make up Mt Coot-tha. The LMP is a plan without context, presented in isolation. 2

3 3.2 A Plan against the Founders The founders of the trust deed registered the subject land as a Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) as a site for a Public Park and no other purpose whatsoever (Title Reference ). The Zipline proposal seeks to alienate, for private commercial purposes, more than 15 hectares of public land, across a broad swathe of the forest. The LMP is in clear conflict with the founders' intent. 3.3 A Plan relying on False Precedents The LMP claims that the Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha and the Mt Coot-tha Quarry are precedents for 'pre-existing secondary uses' in the DOGIT land. However, the Gardens are consistent with the public park designation with attributes of free entry, without commercialism and of largely passive enjoyment. The Quarry is a nonconforming existing use, dating from the nineteenth century that is in conflict with nearby residents because of its noise, ground vibration, traffic and general disruption. Both these uses are historical anachronisms and do not represent precedents for new commercial amusement rides that generate loud noise and significant disruption in areas of predominantly wildlife habitat, passive recreation and botanic gardens. The proposal is clearly in conflict with the primary use of the DOGIT land. 3.4 A Plan that avoids the Statutory Planning Process BCC has effectively side-stepped the statutory planning process associated with amending the Brisbane Cityplan 2014, by producing and relying on two non-statutory, incomplete documents to support the Zipline concept - the Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha Masterplan 2018 and the Our Shared Vision Mt Coot-tha When the 2016 Lord Mayoral candidate Graham Quirk made an election 'commitment' to build 'a Zipline at Mt Coot-tha' and was subsequently elected, he and his Civic Cabinet couhad the opportunity to set in train a proper statutory process to amend the Brisbane Cityplan 2014, our city's planning scheme, to investigate and advise on this proposal. Investigation would have involved the development of a design brief for a comprehensive Zipline proposal that was evidence-based, logical and well founded, a draft planning stage for statutory public consultation, identifying the proposed area, size and other relevant details. There would also have been State interest checks and the comprehensive articulation of what was required in an appropriate and comprehensive Land Management Plan. Instead, the Lord Mayor and Civic Cabinet's first step in April 2017 was to call tenders for the Zipline project (Contract no ) without implementing any of the statutory processes. This is not considered to be consistent with the Local Government Planning Scheme. 3.5 A Plan lacking effective Public consultation The draft LMP relies almost entirely on the technical reports and planning assessments of the Zipline MCU Development Application and repeats many parts of them, verbatim. The draft LMP therefore is reliant entirely on advice from the Zipline proponents. No independent enquiries were made in response to the issues raised by members of the public in their many submissions, the SARA Brisbane Office or the BCC Assessment Manager. 3

4 The final LMP should comprehensively address such issues and state explicitly how they have been resolved or whether they remain for further information and/or resolution. The interested public should be able to see how their feedback has been treated. Further, in PUX901/209 issue 6.0 of May 2017, it is stated that "an inconsistent use is not to adversely affect any business in the area surrounding the trust land". However, the Zipline proposal includes the removal of 14 car spaces used by patrons of the Summit Restaurant and Kuta Cafe on Lot 1079 on SL5015. Therefore the latter businesses will be adversely affected by the Zipline proposal, which does not comply with the relevant Policy. The draft LMP specifically excludes these establishments, stating blithely that their land will be the subject of a separate LMP, commissioned by the BCC.This is a further example of piecemeal planning where the public is not being informed of the whole story. Several local environment groups were excluded from consultation. The draft LMP states that it "conformed to the (DNRME) department's LMP consultation requirements" but this is clearly not the case and the final LMP should detail that: 1. Conforming groups of stakeholder are not artificially limited to narrow interest associations (eg birds), BCC employees and members of the LNP Council, selected on the basis of their prior-acceptance of the Zipline proposal; 2. Conforming consultation must involve interested members of the general public sought through media advertising; and 3. conforming consultation should have been undertaken before the draft LMP was completed. This is a breach of process. The public will be unable to comment on the final draft LMP. Only one hard copy of the draft LMP was available for the public to peruse. Times and places for 'pop-up kiosks' with LMP information were located in physically challenging places at inconvenient times and dates. Many attendees recounted that staff attending these kiosks were unable to answer relevant questions about the LMP or the Zipline proposal and merely advised attendees to 'read the document' or 'make a feed-back submission'. There was no genuine attempt to engage with the public or help their understanding of the planning process or merits of the proposal. The selective consultation processes were not considered democratic, representative, socially inclusive or meaningful. They did not cater for the elderly or for people with disabilities. The draft LMP contains only minimal information with many obvious omissions and inadequacies. It is recommended that the consultants be requested to finalise the draft before re-starting the consultation period with a reasonably complete copy, rather than only a part of the whole story. 3.6 A Plan that trivialises the Impacts The proposed installation of a 1.4 km Mega 6-Ziplines, a single 1.3 km zipline, and a 349m suspension bridge, involving the lease of hectares of bushland to a commercial business, will have significant, multiple impacts on the strategic values, both singly and together. The draft LMP has failed to detail or address these impacts. 4

5 The multiple impacts by a commercial Zipline operation on the DOGIT land include the following: 1. Zipline operational areas will be fenced-off and therefore the public cannot gain free access to the whole of their public park; 2. The proposed Scenic Zipline comprising six parallel ziplines will produce more than 100 decibels of noise over a length of 1.5 km for approximately 12 hours of the day, seven days per week, and possibly 52 weeks of the year, which is inconsistent with passive uses and natural quiet of this public park; 3. The proposal discriminates against access to the park by age, health, disability, gender, pregnancy, maternity, certain mental conditions, ethnic origin and poverty through enforced exclusion or self-exclusion from the proposed activities; 4. The Zipline destroys native vegetation (an unknown number but at least 400 trees to be removed or damaged); 5. The Zipline destroys and disrupts wildlife habitat over the proposed activity areas plus wider surrounding areas by significant noise over a total length of 3.5 km, general disturbance, and night-lighting; 6. Additional pressures on parking and public transport by Zipline users and staff will diminish the ability of the public to access the public park and lookout; 7. Additional road traffic caused by the Zipline operations will diminish the ability of cyclists to safely access the park for recreation. 8. Loss of public safety from the proposed introduction of a new bus service (3 metres wide) every few minutes on all pedestrian roads (4 metres wide) throughout the Botanic Gardens (therefore clearance of only 0.5 m on either side of the buses where no adjoining footpaths exist to escape). The proposed new bus service will interrupt the safety and quiet enjoyment of botanical displays throughout the whole of the Gardens; 9. Introduction of a new cohort into the Botanic Gardens that has no demonstrated interest in the purpose of the Gardens and may cause damage, theft, disturbance, vandalism and other criminal activities including possible violence; 10. Reduction of security for people and property during proposed extended hours of Botanic Gardens opening until 10pm at night, seven days per week. 3.7 A Plan that ignores Safety Standards The draft LMP fails to consider the principles applying to the design and construction of aerial amusement rides such as the proposed seven ziplines. This is a major omission and goes directly to the purpose of proving, or otherwise, the concept of zipline use on the subject land. This issue is critical and cannot be 'pushed back' to the working drawings and BA/OWA stage of design. The proposed design has not identified compliance with any Australian and/or International design, construction, operation and maintenance standards. The final LMP should canvas this issue and provide sufficient information to the State of Queensland to facilitate assessment. The MCU Bushfire Risk Assessment and Management Plan (BRAMP) report concluded that zipline management will take into account the existing BCC bushfire management regime on Mt Coot-tha, where forest mostly surrounds the subject site. The final LMP should detail an agreement between BCC and the zipline operator that confirms where, 5

6 how and what responsibilities and duty of care to users will exist to prevent injury or death from catastrophic bushfires. 3.8 MCPA Recommendation Based on considerations of the above reasons, the MCPA recommends that the draft LMP be rejected. 4.0 THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROPOSAL WITH THE PRIMARY USE OF THE LAND 4.1 The Existing Primary Use The primary use of the subject land is for a designated public park and no other purpose whatsoever. Common components of the primary use are the same as for any other large bushland park. They include one or a combination of walking, cycling, mountain bike riding, birdwatching, horse-riding, viewing, picnicking, family gatherings and similar. All of these free, low intensity recreational uses include a degree of enjoyment of the natural bushland environment, are low impact and utilise low-impact infrastructure. There may be excitement and noisy enjoyment over brief periods but, for the most part, these activities are calm and peaceful. Most of these uses are restricted to daylight hours, although the use of the Summit area and infrastructure extends into the evening. The quoted words "and no other purpose whatsoever" provide us with a clearly-expressed intent in the Trust Deed to avoid inconsistent uses being introduced to the subject land. 4.2 Zipline Proposal for an Inconsistent Secondary Use The Zipline proposal is for an inconsistent secondary use. This factual description was confirmed by the Applicant BCC in its Planning Assessment Report ( 18) for the MCU Application. The zipline rides can fairly be described as high-intensity, expensive, aerial amusement rides through and over parts of the Mt Coot-tha Forest. The essence of the Scenic Zipline ride is similar to many rides at the Gold Coast Theme Parks - briefly thrilling and speedy - and cannot be regarded as a thoughtful ecotourism experience. The rides will run for up to 15 hours per day, day and night, seven days per week. As discussed above, the Zipline proposal involves a plethora of high-impacts associated with remnant vegetation clearing, continuing pruning of vegetation over large areas, interference with the breeding and foraging habitat of threatened species, interference with heritage values including views from the Summit Lookout, the erection and maintenance of large-scale structures, increased road traffic, noise and lighting impacts. The MCPA considers that, not only is the Zipline proposal an inconsistent use, but is a conflicting use that would significantly detract from the primary uses. 6

7 5.0 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE STATE'S INTERESTS The matters of MCU referral to the State (SARA) included Native Vegetation clearing, Visual (Heritage) Impacts and several Traffic issues. 5.1 Area of Native Vegetation to be Cleared The MCPA considers that the clearing of Native Vegetation is a matter that is yet to be satisfactorily addressed in the draft LMP and that it also has secondary impacts on visual, wildlife and heritage strategic site values. The Applicant's calculation (in the Ecological Assessment Report, EAR) of area of remnant native vegetation to be cleared is incomplete, because the brief for tree survey of the subject land included only trees greater than 150mm at 1.3m above ground. The estimated area to be removed in this respect is c.2ha. It is noted that twenty-eight (28) hollow-bearing trees are included in those to be removed. However, in addition to clearing of the above ancient trees, the Bushfire Risk and Management Plan in the DA supporting documents has determined that all smaller vegetation including shrubs and trees less than 150mm at 1.3m above ground are to be removed from fire management areas surrounding various parts of the proposed infrastructure, in perpetuity. Significantly,these smaller trees have not been surveyed or identified. Their number is therefore unknown and their area is not included in the estimate of clearing. The State Referrals Agency (SARA) also stated, in their letter of further advice dated 17 October 2018 that: "The application has not taken into account clearing as a result of the Material Change of Use (MCU) that will become exempt clearing for fire breaks and safety buffers". The SARA letter calculated the maximum area likely to be cleared under these provisions of the Planning Act 2016 as being of the order of 28ha, a much greater area than that claimed in the EAR. This was the result of the necessary, exempt clearing of 60m each side of built infrastructure, based on the highest trees at 40m height. The Applicant BCC claimed, in response to the SARA letter, that bushfire management at Mt Coot-tha was being undertaken by the Trustee BCC such that fuel loads were effectively managed and there was therefore no need to clear for fire breaks around built infrastructure. Furthermore, that the built infrastructure was not vulnerable to bushfire attack, due to its design and use of materials. Their response was that no such clearing was needed, whatsoever. We therefore have a situation where, on one side are the State DNRME officers, who are applying a State-wide policy that articulates the necessity to clear vegetation (exempt clearing) for firebreaks and safety buffers up to 60m, and on the other side are the consultants for the Applicant BCC, that say no clearing is required. There was a considerable difference in opinion about what clearing is required, or allowed under current planning regulations. 7

8 SARA subsequently considered the BCC opinion in their letter of 6 December 2018, stating that: "The department is satisfied that the development will not necessitate additional clearing of native vegetation (future exempt clearing work) for firebreaks and safety buffers as a result of the establishment of built infrastructure". Note, built infrastructure. Unfortunately, two significant factors were omitted from both the Applicant BCC response and the SARA letter. These factors are that, firstly, the Zipline proposal will invite large numbers of visitors into a high-risk bushfire environment (mature mixed eucalypt open forest) for a commercial purpose, thereby encouraging visitors to take this risk. MCPA members recall a 6 October 2004 high intensity canopy bushfire over 200 hectares in the Mt Coot-tha Forest, documented in the BRAMP report; recalls the speed at which such fires can spread; and is further aware of increased frequency of fires expected in future, due to climate change. The State Planning Policy 2017 states on 48 that "increased temperatures (due to climate change) will increase the likelihood, intensity and extent of areas affected by bushfires, lengthen fire seasons and reduce the opportunity for hazard reduction between fire seasons". Therefore there may be no perceived need by the Applicant BCC to clear firebreaks for protection of built infrastructure, but there will be an obvious and urgent need to create such buffers for the safety of visitors. There is still a duty of professional care! It is questionable whether insurance cover can effectively be provided for public liability risks that have been identified, but classified as some-how being 'tolerable'. The Queensland State Planning Policy 2017 requires that "the risks associated with natural hazards, including the projected impacts of climate change, are avoided or mitigated to protect people and property and enhance the community's resilience to natural hazards". Avoided first, mitigated second. In this case, avoidance can only occur by simply clearing the necessary firebreaks and safety buffers, or relocating the Zipline away from open eucalypt forests. The required fire breaks and safety buffers have not been comprehensively assessed and are not included in the calculation of area to be cleared, because the Applicant BCC asserts they are not needed. The Assessment Manager BCC differs in its view and states, in the 2 October 2018 Information Request that the Applicant BCC should "Amend the (Bushfire Hazard and Risk Assessment Report) methodology to omit any reliance on the management of land outside the proposed lease areas...". The MCPA concludes that the proposed fire risk management plan does not comply with the BCC Bushfire Overlay Code and that it understates the area that will, ultimately, need to be cleared for fire-breaks and safety buffers. This non-compliance needs to be thoroughly canvassed in the draft LMP. Secondly, there are other hazards for people and property from limb-fall and tree-fall associated with the Mt Coot-tha forest, which is regularly subject to severe storms including hailstorms and occasionally, extreme cyclone or localised typhoon events. 8

9 The latter have not been acknowledged or assessed with respect to large canopy trees occurring in the landscape above the proposed Ziplines. The removal of such trees has not been included in the calculation of area to be cleared. No extreme weather management plan is mentioned in the proposal. No allowance has been made for such pro-active safety clearing. The MCPA considers that, when taken together, the above facts lead to the conclusion that the referral is incomplete in terms of the estimated area to be cleared. This means that the likely impact on the local koala and Greater Glider populations is also underestimated and will, in fact, be significant. This is because all trees to be cleared are classified as koala food trees and their removal will add to the overall impact. The draft LMP needs to address these issues prior to it being assessed for approval. 6.0 THE DEGREE OF FORWARD PLANNING UNDERTAKEN IN RELATION TO THE SITE AND THE RISK OF INCREMENTAL PROGRESSION 6.1 BCC Forward Planning is Opaque The MCU documents, although they are many and long, do not canvas alternative Zipline sites or, indeed, any logical reasons why the proposal is located where it is. Further, the public consultation process has not provided any background of alternatives. There may have been alternatives, but we have not heard anything about them. For example, several already-cleared areas of Mt Coot-tha, in the western portion are used for other recreational purposes and could have been chosen. Also, no other parts of Brisbane, with already-cleared land, views and recreational opportunities were considered. Many sites are available that do not carry the same constraints and likely impacts of the proposed site, that is a Brisbane landmark. The Courier-Mail recently published an article (headlined Queen's Wharf zipline plan to be Brisbane's Star attraction, December 24th), informing the public that two other commercial Zipline proposals are being investigated or prepared by the Star Entertainment Group for use in the inner City. These would be more conveniently located and likely to be of more interest to tourists than the proposed Mt Coot-tha ziplines. The degree of forward planning for the site is opaque to the residents of Brisbane. The sidestepping of the planning scheme amendment process is noted above. No details are provided by BCC on the tender process, other than that is was 'exhaustive', or the alternative tender proposals. Now that a decision has been made on the preferred operator, 'commercial-in-confidence' tactics may no longer apply. 6.2 Incremental Progression of Commercial Use The risk of incremental progression, though, is considered to be very real on BCC's agenda. 9

10 Firstly, reference is made in the non-statutory document Our Shared Vision Mt Coot-tha 2030 (OSVMC2030) to 'commercial opportunities in the Mt Coot-tha Precinct'. No detail is provided by BCC, but this vision-mention could be used in the future to support such development proposals within the DOGIT land. Secondly, reference is made in the Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha Masterplan 2018 (BBGMP2018) to the relationship between 'further... visitation numbers' and 'opening up potential business opportunities within the gardens'. These could easily also be located in DOGIT land. Thirdly, the Mt Coot-tha Quarry is a pre-existing non-conforming use on DOGIT land and the future of the quarry is very relevant to this criterion, but direct discussion of this topic has been studiously avoided by BCC. The draft LMP referenced the 'BCC opinion' that the Zipline secondary use is appropriate and consistent with Policy, "especially considering that the DOGIT currently supports other pre-existing secondary uses, including parts of the Brisbane Botanic Gardens Mt Coot-tha, and the use of parts of the site for the Mt Coot-tha Quarry". The MCPA does not know of any evidence of prior ministerial approval for these two referenced 'pre-existing secondary uses'. The BBCGMP2018 was confirmed by BCC to be a 15-year master plan. However, the introduction to the master plan (despite feedback requests from residents) takes care to mention that "Not (sic) part of the scope of this master plan is the Mt Coot-tha quarry which remains an operational asset providing value to Council". In contradiction to this, the statutory Planning Scheme states that "Any rehabilitation and restoration measures are consistent with the post-(mt Coot-tha) quarry use as an extension of, and incorporation into, the Brisbane Botanic Gardens" (Section (b).ii of the Mt Coot-tha Neighbourhood Plan Code). An Editor's note continues that: "Council intends to commence planning for post-quarry use around Detailed planning will seek to implement the Mt Coot-tha 2030 Vision for the Brisbane City Council quarry site". The quarry resource is diminishing and is estimated in the planning scheme to be closed around BCC has, on many occasions, confirmed that it will become incorporated into the Brisbane Botanic Gardens. The final LMP should, in the interests of relevance and completeness, be amended to include this circumstance. The fact that the 30 hectare quarry is still operational, and may be for the next 7 years, is not a reason to omit it from a 15-year master planning process. It is currently understood that: 1. The BBGMP2018 is a 15-year planning guide; 2. The master plan specifically excludes the 30 hectare Mt Coot-tha Quarry (which represents more than 50% of the size of the existing 56 hectare Botanic Garden); 10

11 3. The Mt Coot-tha Quarry is likely to close in a mere 7 years after the 15-year master plan is published and therefore right in the middle of the stated planning period; 4. The Mt Coot-tha Quarry is formally declared by BCC to become incorporated into the Botanic Garden; 5. The Botanic Garden will, in future, include commercial opportunities; 6. The rehabilitation of the Mt Coot-tha Quarry will cost a great deal of money (a specific budget for which appears to be missing); 7. Commercial opportunities may provide a great deal of money; and therefore 8. Further redevelopment of the Quarry will facilitate further commercial use of the Mt Coot-tha Forest and Botanic Gardens. If the Zipline proposal is implemented, this in turn will be used to justify extension of commercial development within the DOGIT area as the ultimate post-quarry use and will result in a major progression of commercial use on all the DOGIT land. None of this is canvassed in the Brisbane City Plan 2014, our statutory planning scheme, nor is it discussed in the draft LMP. 7.0 RELATIONSHIP WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING SCHEME (TOWN PLAN) As noted in paragraph 3.4 above, when the then 2016 Lord Mayoral Candidate Graham Quirk made an election 'commitment' to build 'a zipline at Mt Coot-tha' and was subsequently elected as Lord Mayor, he and his Civic Cabinet could have used the statutory process to amend the Brisbane City Plan 2014, our city's planning scheme, to make their proposal compliant. This would have included the usual steps such as statutory public consultation and State interest checks. Unfortunately this statutory process was ignored and effectively side-stepped, by BCC's production and reliance on two non-statutory, partly-complete documents to provide support for the Zipline concept, according to the Planning Assessment Report in the MCU Application. These are the Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha Masterplan 2018 and the Our Shared Vision Mt Coot-tha Notwithstanding the emphasis on these documents in the Applicant's MCU Planning Assessment Report, the Zipline proposal was only briefly mentioned, without locational or any other details, in the final version of the Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha Masterplan "installing a zipline attraction (subject to approval)" - and notably, did not appear in the 2017 draft documents including the 'Fly-through video' dated March 2017, that were available for public 'consultation'. 11

12 The Zipline proposal is not even mentioned in the Our Shared Vision Mt Coot-tha 2030 document. The Planning Assessment Report concluded that the proposal is 'substantially' consistent with the relevant Planning Scheme Codes, but its development application had to be classified as impact assessable - generally inconsistent with the planning scheme. It is inconsistent with the strategic planning intent and is not even contemplated in the finergrain detail of planning in the Mt Coot-tha Neighbourhood Plan and Code. Despite its ability to amend the Brisbane City Plan 2014 to make this proposal comply, Council decided to push ahead with a generally inconsistent -Impact Assessment application - to be assessed by itself. The result is a flawed, ill-conceived concept that has been 'shoe-horned' into a public park where its impacts are multiple and manifest. 8.0 THE DEGREE OF COMMERCIALITY AND EXCLUSIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSAL Put simply, the Zipline proposal is a purely commercial enterprise that will result in the exclusive use of its lease area by paying customers. The commercial impact by the proposed Zipline on existing businesses at Mt Coot-tha and the Botanic Garden has not been investigated. In PUX901/209 issue 6.0 of May 2017, it is stated that "an inconsistent use is not to adversely affect any business in the area surrounding the trust land". As outlined in paragraph 3.5 above, the Zipline proposal will cause the removal of 14 car spaces used by patrons of the Summit Restaurant and Kuta Cafe on Lot 1079 on SL5015. Therefore the latter businesses will be adversely affected by the Zipline proposal, which does not comply with the relevant Policy. The draft LMP specifically excludes these establishments, stating that their land will be the subject of a separate LMP, commissioned by the BCC. This is an example of piecemeal planning and the public has not been fully informed. The Brisbane Botanic Garden Mt Coot-tha Master Plan 2018 includes reference to a proposal to introduce a new Tricontinental Tree Top Walk and Lookout Cafe in the Central Precinct. The Zipline proposal introduces a refreshment kiosk and souvenir retail outlet in the Botanic Garden that will compete with both planned and existing similar businesses. The draft LMP should be clear about how these economic impacts will be avoided or mitigated. 12

13 9.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The land that is the subject of the Mt Coot-tha Zipline proposal is approximately 600 hectares of bushland and comprises 37.5% of the greater Mt Coot-tha Forest; 2. The Mt Coot-tha forest is an iconic, multiply-constrained part of the Brisbane landscape, with significant wilderness experience, indigenous heritage, regional wildlife corridor, biodiversity, threatened species and recreational strategic values; 3. The draft LMP is artificially constrained to Lot 2 on SP and does not consider the balance of the Mt Coot-tha Forest. There is no 'whole of mountain' or 'holistic' plan. 4. The Zipline proposal will alienate hectares of public parkland in the Mount Coot-tha Forest for strictly commercial purposes. A much greater area than stated will need to be cleared for fire and disaster planning reasons but this matter remains unresolved; 5. The Zipline proposal is both inconsistent and in conflict with the primary use of the DOGIT land for public park and no other purpose whatsoever; 6. The Zipline proposal is non-compliant with the SEQ Regional Plan and the Brisbane City Plan 2014, our statutory planning scheme; 7. The Applicant BCC has not comprehensively demonstrated any economic and/or social benefits accrued by the Zipline proposal; 8. The Zipline proposal has not demonstrated compliance with relevant engineering and safety standards; 9. The Zipline proposal will cause a range of poorly articulated and understated ecological, noise, traffic, visual and heritage impacts; 10. The Brisbane community has not been properly consulted about the draft LMP; 11. The draft LMP is an incomplete first draft that does not address the likely impacts and whether they can be avoided or mitigated. A second draft should be referred to the public for a true consultation process that meets the statutory planning standards; 12. The Zipline proposal will, if implemented, be a dangerous precedent for the incremental progression of commercial development of the Mt Coot-tha Forest and Botanic Garden, including the Mt Coot-tha Quarry; 13. The Zipline proposal is clearly against the wishes of the residents of Brisbane. Over the last three days (13-15 December) of the public notification period, 1205 or 95.9% of the total 1256 submission uploaded to the Assessment Manager BCC's pd online website objected to the proposal. Submissions in favour during this period numbered only 51, or 4.1%; 13

14 14. The many interested residents of Brisbane deserve to review a comprehensive, well-referenced draft LPM that addresses all the issues raised in this and other submissions. 15. In view of these facts, the MCPA respectfully recommends that the draft Land Management Plan be not accepted and that no permission be given to the Applicant BCC for a lease to any commercial operator, including Zipline Australia Pty Ltd. Kind Regards Peter Hale President, Mt Coot-tha Protection Alliance, Inc. mobile pthale@bigpond.com APPENDIX I - See attached document for the MCPA,Inc 13 December 2018 objection against the MCU Application A to the Assessment Manager, BCC. 14