MT ROLAND: DEVELOPING A DESTINATION APPENDICES · • Existing tourism industry based on niche but strongly branded foundation: o Murals o Annual events Muralfest, Steamfest, Taste

Page | 1

MT ROLAND:

DEVELOPING A DESTINATION

APPENDICES

Page | 2

Table of contents

Appendix A: Mount Roland Steering Committee Project Brief ...................................... 3

Appendix B: Tourism Market Overview .......................................................................... 9

Appendix C: Regulatory and Statutory Considerations ................................................ 12

Appendix D: Community Asset Map ............................................................................. 22

Appendix E: SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................... 22

Appendix F: Community Consultation Methodology ................................................... 24

Appendix G: Kentish Community Survey ...................................................................... 28

Appendix H: Kentish Community Survey analysis ........................................................ 30

Appendix I: Kentish Tourism Stakeholder Survey ......................................................... 56

Appendix J: Governance Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................. 63

Appendix K: Mount Roland Public Forum ..................................................................... 65

Appendix L: Community Consultation Summary .......................................................... 71

Appendix M: Adventure Tourism Hub Proposal ........................................................... 74

Appendix N: Recreation Camping Proposal .................................................................. 81

Appendix O: Mountain Bike and Cycling Park Proposal ............................................... 85

Appendix P: Walking Tracks Proposal ........................................................................... 95

Appendix Q: Look‐outs and Look‐ats Proposal ........................................................... 110

Appendix R: Aboriginal Cultural Tours Proposal ........................................................ 114

Appendix S: History, Culture and Nature Interpretation Centre ................................ 118

Appendix T: Cable Car Proposal .................................................................................. 121

Page | 3

APPENDIX A: PROJECT BRIEF

Page | 4

Page | 5

Page | 6

Page | 7

Page | 8

Page | 9

APPENDIX B: TOURISM MARKET OVERVIEW

Whilst the overall number of visitors to Tasmania declined slightly in the last year, a ten‐

year perspective shows that the annual number of visitors has increased by 70%. The

number of nights in Tasmania has remained relatively stable at approximately 9 nights

over the ten years, but overall expenditure has more than doubled, with the average

per person expenditure increasing by 27% over ten years. The number of visitors does

not include cruise ship arrivals of 75,200, a decline of 26% on the previous year

(January‐December) due to reduced cruise ship arrivals.

Table 1. Visitors to Tasmania 2001 – 2010 (January‐December)

2001 2007 2008 2009 2010 % Change

in last year

Visitors 531,000 824,100 907,200 912,100 904,000 ‐0.9

Nights

million

4.77 7.06 7.43 8.56 8.29 ‐3.2

Average length of stay

9.3 nights 8.6 nights 8.2 nights 9.4 nights

9.2 nights ‐2.1

Spend $705 million $1.31billion $1.47billion $1.47billion 1.52billion +3.8

Average per person spend

$1,328 $1,596 $1,622 $1,612 $1,688 +4.7

Average spend per night

$142 $186 $198 $172 $183 +6.4

Source: Tourism Tasmania Snapshot December 2010; Tourism Tasmania‐ Our Environment 2008.

Of these visitors, 15.7% (142,000) are international visitors, a 2% increase on the

previous year. Most interstate visitors (82%) come from three states: Victoria, followed

by NSW and Queensland. This totalled 779,900 interstate visitors, representing a slight

decline of ‐0.2%.

For the year to December 2010 the number of arrivals on the Spirit of Tasmania

increased by 6% to 135,200. As the Spirit terminal is situated in the North‐West, this

aug

of v

Nor

4%

Acc

Crad

yea

by P

Tasm

ove

in th

Sourc

St

Ulv

She4

urs well for

visitors by 5%

rth, and 2%

and Wester

ording to T

dle Mounta

r. The most

Port Arthur

mania 2010

rnight in D

he hinterlan

ce: Tourism Tas

Wynyard7%

anley7%

verstone7%

effield4%

Latrobe3%

Smithto3%

Fig

r the region

%, compare

for the Eas

rn Wilderne

Tourism Tas

ain/Valley w

t visited sit

r Historic sit

0, apart from

Devonport a

nd towns su

smania 2010 Ta

e

onArthur River1%

Ot

gure 1. Over

n. The North

ed with an i

st Coast, wh

ess, a declin

smania (201

with 210,40

tes were in

te (250,600

m Cradle M

and other t

uch as Sheff

asmanian Visito

Bur13

ther N‐W10%

rnight stays i

h‐West zone

ncrease of

hile Hobart

ne of 3%.

10), the 4th

0 visitors, a

the south:

0) and Mou

Mountain, m

owns along

field and La

ors Survey Table

rnie3%

in North‐We

e experienc

6% for Laun

t and surrou

most visite

an increase

Salamanca

unt Welling

most visitors

g the North

trobe.

e 3 Total numb

D

est Zone Jan

ced an incre

nceston, Ta

unds experi

ed attractio

of nearly 1

a Markets (3

gton (218,3

s to the Nor

‐West coas

er of nights sta

Devonport25%

Cradle20%

nuary‐Decem

Pa

ease in the

mar Valley

ienced a de

n in Tasma

1% on the p

319,600), fo

00). From T

rth‐West zo

st, rather th

ayed in towns.

e Mt%

mber 2010

De

Cr

Bu

W

St

Ul

Sh

La

Sm

Ar

Ot

age | 10

number

and the

ecline of

nia was

previous

ollowed

Tourism

one stay

han stay

evonport

radle Mt

urnie

Wynyard

tanley

lverstone

heffield

atrobe

mithton

rthur River

ther N‐W

Page | 11

Tourism Tasmania 2010 (Table 3b places stopped or stayed overnight in Sheffield)

indicates that 100,100 visitors aged 14 years and over stopped in Sheffield, the main

town in Kentish. Of these, 56% are repeat visitors. Of the total number of visitors to

Sheffield, most are on holiday (76%) or visiting friends and relatives (13.4%). Tourism

Tasmania (2010) indicates that there are over 1 million intrastate overnight travel stays

in Tasmania in the year to December 2010, with an average length of 2.6 nights stay and

a daily spend of $115, in addition to over 4 million day trippers who spend an average of

$98 per visitor.

As the primary gateway to the current key North‐West attraction of Cradle Mountain,

Kentish then has an opportunity and challenge to retain visitors within Kentish by

providing a more diverse range of visitor experiences, but in keeping with the rural and

wilderness landscape, that is high quality authentic nature‐based experiences combined

with premium food and wine experiences and underpinned with a range of culture and

heritage experiences.

Page | 12

APPENDIX C: REGULATORY AND STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

Indigenous Cultural Values

1. There have not been any Aboriginal heritage studies undertaken on Mount Roland

and therefore few documented aboriginal cultural considerations. However,

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania (AHT) cautions this is not to say there is no aboriginal

cultural significance attached to the mountain – just that it has not been

documented.

2. AHT does have some records of individual artefacts having been found on and

around Mount Roland.

3. A cultural heritage survey would be required under federal and state legislation

before any significant development could be undertaken.

4. Mount Roland was part of the tribal lands of the Six Rivers aboriginal community, who

called it Ta Neem Er Ra (big grass plain).

5. According to Six Rivers cultural lore, there are:

a. Ceremonial women’s areas in specific places at the foot of the mountain –

particularly birthing areas by creeks and rivers.

b. Caves, rock shelters and special cultural/ceremonial areas on top and on the faces of

the mountain, as well as in Sensation Gorge.

c. Hunting activities were conducted on the mountain and it served as one of the major

landmarks of the region, used as a lookout and as a high point for long‐distance

communication with neighbouring tribes.

6. Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania can provide advice about protecting heritage places,

including development setback requirements and all other aspects of Aboriginal heritage

protection and management. Additional information can be obtained from the

Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council.

7. Consultation with the Aboriginal community should occur at the planning stage of

proposed works to minimise the risk of causing damage to Aboriginal heritage values.

Page | 13

P&W Land Management Issues 1. As there is no specific management plan for the Mount Roland precinct, Parks &

Wildlife Service regulation would primarily be conducted under:

a) National Parks and Reserves Management Act (2002)

b) Nature Conservation Act (2002) (for preservation of flora, fauna, geodiversity

and cultural values)

c) Reserves Activity Assessment (2010)

d) Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice (2003) (a management

blueprint for, among other things, conservation, roads, tracks, buildings and

infrastructure, protection of natural, cultural, social and recreation values,

planning and strategy guidance, weed and disease control, fire management

and water quality).

Other relevant legislative frameworks include:

a) Land Use Planning and Approvals Act (1993).

b) Local Government Building Act (2000)

c) Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (1994)

d) Forest Practices Act (1985)

e) State Policies and Projects Act (1993)

f) Water Management Act (1999)

Fire Management Plan

1. Decisions and strategies must be made with consideration of the Roland Fire

Management Area Fire Management Plan (2008), which highlights fire risks and

includes strategies, including ongoing risk analysis and mitigation, to reduce the

chance of fire that may endanger life and property.

2. This strategy requires its stakeholders to undertake a fire risk analysis on any

development in the Mount Roland area.

3. The area covered by the fire plan is defined in this map, which forms Appendix A of

the Roland Fire Management Area Fire Management Plan (2008).

Page | 14

Source: Park and Wildlife Service Tasmania Appendix A of the Roland Fire Management Area Fire Management Plan (2008).

Environmental protection legislation

There are several key legislative frameworks that must be addressed in relation to

threatened species and the impact of potential developments on them on Mount

Roland.

1. Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC)

2. Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

3. Nature Conservation Act 2002

4. Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (1994)

5. Land Uses Planning and Approvals (1993), and

6. State policies on water quality

EPBC Act:

Anything that might impact on natural resources must be approved by obtaining an

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act permit, administered by the

federal government.

Page | 15

Any development on the mountain must first account for the location of threatened

species. The Natural Values Atlas, NRM Threatened Species Plans, Recovery Plans and

Vegetation Communities Maps are useful resources for gathering specific information.

Threatened Species Protection Act (1995):

There are a significantly greater number of species on the state‐legislated Tasmanian

Threatened Species List, under this Act, than is covered in the national EPBC Act.

There are several flora and fauna considerations specific to Mount Roland, including:

• Wedgetail eagles

• Giant freshwater lobster

• Swift parrot

• Tasmanian devil

Nature Conservation Act (2002):

Stipulates laws for the removal of, and mitigates impacts on, flora, fauna and land in

Tasmania.

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act (1994)

This primarily controls, regulates, oversees and prescribes penalties for pollution and

discharge. It also prescribes management tools.

Land Uses Planning and Approvals Act 1993

This Act regulates land use and development through planning schemes and a permit

system. It requires environmental assessments be conducted, ensuring appropriate

conditions and restrictions are included in permits issued by planning authorities for any

development.

Water:

The State Policy on Water Quality Management (1997) and the Water Management Act

(1999) comprise the framework of state legislation that protects environmental values

and water quality. These address water quality for environmental and drinking

Page | 16

purposes, with particular focus on catchment areas that supply drinking water for towns

and individual private properties.

Mining lease: Mineral Resources Development Act (1995)

Other:

1. Kentish Council land use, planning and water by‐laws

2. Local Government Building Act (2000)

3. Forest Practices Act (1985)

4. Historic Cultural Heritage Act (1995)

5. Aboriginal Relics Act (1975)

6. Relevant Australian standards

7. State Policies and Projects Act (1993)

Source: Cradle Coast NRM

Page | 17

Source: Cradle Coast NRM

Page | 18

APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY ASSET MAP

Summary:

• Existing tourism industry based on niche but strongly branded foundation:

o Murals

o Annual events Muralfest, Steamfest, Taste of the North‐West

• Municipality’s tourism strengths:

o Murals

o Accessible wilderness – featuring 6 lakes, 4 mountains/ranges, 7 waterfalls, 6

rivers within 30 minutes

o An uninterrupted ribbon of natural bush from Forth to Lake Cethana, then east

past Mount Roland to the Gog Range

o Natural and rural scenery main visual feature

o Diversity of natural experience

o Much of existing tourism industry is built on unusual/unique attractions

o Unusual mix of collectables/museum type shops in Sheffield

o Relatively compact area with ideal loop road system for day trips

o Multiple points of access to district

o On main access road to World Heritage‐listed Cradle Mountain, whose visitors

are seeking wilderness experience

o Number, quality and experience at B&Bs highlight of accommodation sector,

but other types are limited

o Considerable capacity for expansion of tourism industry

Page | 19

Table: Asset map

Mount Roland/

Gowrie Park

Sheffield Railton Wilmot Outlying

Natural Mount Roland Mount Claude Mount Van Dyke Round Mtn lookout Gog Range Sensation Gorge Sensation Gorge caves Views Middle of uninterrupted natural ribbon from Paloona to Alum Cliffs Minnow Falls Falls at rear of Mount Claude

Views of Mount Roland range Rural setting Space Nearby forest Beulah/Stoodley forests Badgers range

Mersey River (most accessible Parts; some of most picturesque, wide) Excellent river access at Kimberley

Henry Somerset Orchid Reserve Large areas of State Forest Kimberley Warm Springs

Accessible wilderness Bell Mtn Forested Forth River valley Large forested areas Mountain and rural views Access to Lake Barrington Spectacular views

Views Accessible wilderness Native ecosystem link Paloona DamGog Range Gondwana forests, Western Tiers The Badgers, Lake Barrington, Lake Cethana, Lake Paloona, Lake Rowallan, Lake Parangana, Lake Mackenzie, Mersey River, Forth River, Don River Dasher River, Devil’s Gullett, Devil’s Gates cliffs Mole Creek Caves, Lake Barrington, Alum Cliffs Wilmot valley, Nook Falls, Bridal Veil Falls Champagne Falls, No Name Falls, Forth Falls Hogg Creek Falls (Paloona), Arm Falls (Lake Rowallan)

Built Mount Roland summit track (from O’Neill’s Creek)

Kings Rd track to summit Mount Claude‐Mount Roland summit track Minnow Falls track Summit‐Minnow Falls Track O’Neill’s Creek camping reserve (Gowrie Park) Syke's Sanctuary (birds & fauna) Road access to Mount Claude summit Mount Van Dyke road access (Telecom) Services and facilities at Gowrie Park:

• Power • Reticulated water • Water treatment plant • Vacant buildings

Considerable State Forest

Murals Sheffield Golf Course Badgers track Sheffield Museum

Topiary Stoodley Forest Walk Railton Dirt Jump Park (mountain biking)

Considerable State Forest

Bell Mountain Walk Dooley’s Track Wilmot Museum Original Coles Store Camping at Lake Barrington Odd letterboxes Considerable State Forest

Overland Track/Cradle, Tasmania Trail, Walls of Jerusalem, Western Tiers walks, Lake Mackenzie walks Beulah forests, Billet Creek Walk, (Lake Barrington) Marakoopa Fern Glade, Walk (Mole Creek) Nomenclature, Warrawee Forest Reserve (platypus) Lake Barrington recreation area, Kentish Park Unusual nomenclature

Spatial

Central geographic feature of Kentish municipality

Views of lush rural landscape Space Clean air Green Undisturbed native forest and ecosystems 10 minutes from Sheffield 40 minutes from Devonport On main access road to Cradle Mtn

Geographic hub Largest pop., town centre, business community, most accommodation

Proximity of farms Quasi‐historic street scape On main access from Devonport to Cradle & Mount Roland

On way from Elizabeth Town or Latrobe entries to Mount Roland & Cradle Mtn

Well‐placed for day trip loop, returning to highway at Latrobe

Well‐placed as day trip loop from Sheffield to Bass Hwy at Ulverstone

On main route Ulverstone to Cradle

Access to Lake Barrington

Proximity to entry points to Tasmania (Devonport airport & Spirit terminal 30 mins, Launceston 1hr20m, Wynyard 1hr

Proximity to Bass Hwy Multiple access points off Bass Hwy Loop tour potential:

• Sheff‐Wilmot • Sheff‐Railton • Sheff‐Mole Creek • Sheff‐Nook

Page | 20

Most accessible point of highlands in northern Tasmania

Views from summit of almost entire north coast, south to highlands

• Barring‐West Kent‐Sheff • Sheff, Claude Rd‐Promised Land • Acacia Hills‐Paloona‐Forth • Sheff‐Claude Rd‐Liena‐Mole Ck‐ Sheff

Rural look ‐ clean‐green, lush fields, fresh, vibrant Quiet place Clean air, clear skies Topography (flat, hills, valleys, mtns, glacial,

geomorphology, lakes, rivers, cliffs, caves Space Views Relatively compact

Social & cultural

Agriculture Art culture Craft community Strong community network Diversity of residents Strong DIY attitude

Attractions& events

Claude Rd market Gowrie Park rodeo (March) Triple Top Challenge

Muralfest Steamfest Taste of the North-West Fortnightly produce markets Lions Club Music Hall Friday Night Folk Daffodil Show

Seven Sheds Brewery harvest festival

Monthly market Annual events

Tasmazia lavender harvest Picking of the grapes State rowing championships (Feb) NW schools rowing champs (March) Head of river rowing (Apr)] State schools rowing champs (April) Masters rowing (May) Pure Tasmania Cycling Challenge (Nov) Hell in the Hills Triathlon

Heritage & history

Indigenous heritage Mountain cattlemen routes passed nearby Pioneer trappers Hellyer Trail went through south Weindorfer honeymoon connection Mining Extraordinary geomorphology Timbercutting Mersey-Forth Hydro scheme

Sheffield-Roland trainline Kentish Museum Religious beginnings

(nomenclature)

Wide main street to turn bullock teams in single move

Wilmot Museum Gold mining

Early exploration Aboriginal history Logging era (bullocks, sawmills, life) Highland trapping (huts/life) Highland cattlemen Bushrangers Pioneers Roland-Railton trainline Farming Gowrie Park Hydro history: Lakes Mackenzie, Cethana, Barrington, Rowallan Parangana

Tourism-related

Gowrie Park Wilderness Village (caravan

park) Tasmazia and Lower Crackpot

Broad mix of accommodation:

• Hotel • Low & mid-cost motel • B&B

Cradle Country Adventures Limited tourism services Limited eating houses Looking Glass Cottage

Valley of Views theme Custom letterboxes Original Coles store Limited tourism services

Large number of diverse B&Bs, largely featuring

quiet, picturesque locations, rural scenery. Spread across district

Cluster of high-quality accommodation at Moina

Page | 21

• Little at high-end Redwater Creek Steam

Railway Sheffield Honey Farm Cherry Treats Skwiz Gallery & Café Ts Restaurant & Icecream

Shop Highlander Restaurant &

Scottish Scone Shop Chameleon Crafts Reasonable mix of other

eating establishments (limited opening hours)

Sheffield Shell Museum Marble World Mural House Galendor Slater’s Country Store Sheffield Visitor Information

Centre Working Art Space Gallery The Emporium Lolly shop Paradox bazaar Whispering Woods

Capacity to build a community-based tourism industry

Fishing tours Guided tours (eg Cradle Country Tours, quadbikes) Highland Trails Cradle Country branding Outdoor Art Gallery branding Food & wine houses have good rep. Imperfect Productions

(Note: Outlying districts includes some values applicable to the entire municipality).

Page | 22

APPENDIX E: SWOT ANALYSIS

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats were compiled after a site analysis and

through consultation with stakeholders. An asset map was compiled, and the following

observations made:

Strengths Opportunities

Natural

Wildlife Summit accessibility as a tourist draw card

Accessible, close wilderness Leverage for other tourism businessesLake Barrington Natural advantage for:

Adventure experiencesExtreme sportsWildlife viewing

Wilderness experiencesSAV market

Lake Cethana Forth River Mersey River Waterfalls (7) in close proximityGeological formationsGeological/geomorphologicalhistory

Accessible wilderness that is ‘touchable’

Gateway to Cradle Mountain World Heritage area

Tourism networks

Gateway to high alpine wilderness Better promotionThe Badgers view of Mount Roland Upgrade infrastructure Gondwana forests Hellyer TrailDiversity of topography/terrain Greater accommodation capacity Open space More – shorter –walking tracks Mole Creek Caves Various options for summit

accessibilityDevil’s Gullet Community based tourism Devil’s Gate Extension of steam train

Built

Tasmania Trail Innovation in signage Other walking opportunities Cycling and mountain bike rides Road network ‘loops’ Day trip experiences Rural landscapes 2 day breaksHistoric buildings and indigenous experiences

Dusk and dawn photo opportunities

Close to tourist entry/exit points Family fun destination

Lifestyle/ Community

Fishing Outdoor galleryVariety of festivals and events murals Local food and wine Various unique shopping opportunities

Rural lifestyle Artists and artisans

Page | 23

Clean, green SAV & tourist friendly Birdwatching

Compared to Cradle

Mountain

More accessible Free to enter Closer to entry/exit points More experiences/facilities Easier to develop – less obstacles for development

Suitable for all ages Weaknesses Threats

Poor public transport Lack of industry scale No formal walking tours SeasonalityAccess to summit difficult and time consuming Community resistance Business operating hours lack flexibility Unbalanced demographic mix High experiential expectation/ poor delivery Natural disastersNarrow promotional strategies Market domination by powerful fewPoor signage Transport strikesSeasonal tourism market Other similar destinations developing

firstLack of public amenities Lack of indigenous experience Few safe scenic look ‘at’ points Accommodation capacity/variety is weak Low collaboration between businesses Depreciation of existing assets Poor funding opportunities

Page | 24

APPENDIX F: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION METHODOLOGY

Rationale:

The Institute for Regional Development team’s tender application for the Mount Roland:

Developing a Destination strategy had as its central feature a comprehensive consultation

process with the Kentish community and relevant stakeholders to ensure that the final report is

informed, reflects community expectations and desires and builds a strong element of

community ownership.

Purpose:

The Community Consultation process is intended to:

• develop a thorough picture of the values Kentish residents and stakeholders ascribe to

Mount Roland and its environs;

• Develop a nuanced understanding of what development is acceptable to the community;

• Identify existing visions and ideas for Mount Roland;

• Identify untapped assets;

• Understand the regulatory and management frameworks that apply to Mount Roland;

• Understand the current economic and policy climate and how that may influence the

Mount Roland strategy;

• Build community ownership of the vision in the final report;

• Ensure the report’s recommendations are actionable;

• Identify what exists, what might exist, and what the community and stakeholders wish to

exist, in relation to Mount Roland tourism;

• Identify infrastructure and regulatory limitations and obstacles;

• Identify potential funding sources.

As a result of these points, the Community Consultation process led to an informed, relevant,

valid and actionable development strategy.

Methodology:

Community:

The residents’ survey was delivered to the homes of within the Kentish Municipality via

a local publication, the Kentish Chronicle. This was considered to be the most cost

Page | 25

effective way of reaching as many people as possible. Surveys were also available at the

Kentish Council Offices in Sheffield, the Wilmot General Store, the Gumleaf Cafe in

Railton and online at www.kentish.tas.gov.au. Of the 2200 surveys that were delivered

148, or nearly 7%, were returned over a two‐week period. (155 in total) see Appendix

G.

The purpose of the Community Survey was to gauge Kentish residents’ attitudes to

development of various kinds on Mount Roland and to determine their most important

values associated with the mountain. It was also designed to determine where the

community drew the line in terms of level of development on and around the local icon,

and if there was a difference in attitudes between tourism development on Mount

Roland and development around it.

It was not designed to determine level of support for all types of tourism attraction, as it

did not contain reference to tourism based on, for example, history, aboriginal heritage,

self‐accommodating visitors or family‐based theme parks. However, it was intended as a

measure of attitudes about infrastructure and intensity of activity on and around Mount

Roland, and as a measure of attitudes about the positioning of any development.

The survey comprised a series of development ideas that were representative of “types’’

of development with many also reflecting geographical areas of potential development,

in an effort to build a picture of what was acceptable, and where. For example, in

Question 7 respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with specific tourism

attraction ideas. These ideas were selected to represent certain characteristics of

development and to represent various site options. The types of development

suggested in Question 7 were:

• High‐infrastructure developments

• Low‐infrastructure developments

• Sedentary tourism experiences

• High‐energy tourism experiences

• Development on Mount Roland

Page | 26

• Development away from Mount Roland

The survey also included five open qualitative questions, providing respondents with the

opportunity to express their values and their ideas, giving a more nuanced explanation

of what development they supported or not, and why. This allowed suggestions as to

the appropriate placement of any development, given their amenity values.

Key tourism industry stakeholders:

A qualitative survey was conducted by telephone with 42 tourism operators in Kentish.

Most of the respondents interviewed were owner/operators. The interviews were based

on nine questions, and sought information on what “experience’’ is working with

visitors now, what visitors are seeking, whether there is potential and/or capacity to

expand the current tourism experience, and what do they wish/think/hope expansion

may look like.

Like the community survey the responses ranged from no development,

environmentally sensitive development to high infrastructure cable car development.

Although there was some support for a cable car style development, it was not

definitive, and opinions varied about the infrastructure positioning, cost and additional

infrastructure requirements.

Improved accessibility and walking tracks on Mount Roland were strongly favoured as

drawcards for overnight stays, along with more dining options. Most interviewees

believed that should tourism demand increase, they had the capacity to respond, and

also that the private sector was in a better position to initiate and facilitate tourism

development in the Kentish region than state bodies. As one respondent pointed out

however, this is a catch 22 situation, as more investment will not be feasible until visitor

numbers increase, so it seems likely that funding sources for development initially will

need to come from outside Kentish.

Key stakeholders:

Page | 27

Interviews were conducted face‐to‐face with representatives of 20 organisations and

four prominent Kentish tourism stakeholders. These included local governance

organisations, land managers, Six Rivers Aboriginal community and sport and

recreational organisations. The 20 organisations were chosen because they had a

specific and defined role to play in Mount Roland development, were a key regulatory or

statutory authority, had specific knowledge to provide, or were a key potential provider

of support.

Each interviewee was asked about their ideas for development, the impediments,

challenges and obstacles they saw to development generally, specific development

proposals, and other issues specific to their field that related to tourism development on

and around Mount Roland.

Outcome:

As a result of the data gained through these four forms of consultation, a set of

selection criteria for development proposals was established.

From that, a list of potential development proposals was made, which was further fine‐

tuned after further consultation with key stakeholders, and a final list of eight proposals

was established that met the selection criteria.

Page | 28

APPENDIX G: KENTISH COMMUNITY SURVEY FEBRUARY – MARCH 2011

Page | 29

Page | 30

APPENDIX H: COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS

Introduction:

The Kentish Community Survey was published in The Kentish Chronicle on 1 March

2011, and was also available online and at distribution points in Sheffield, Railton and

Wilmot. 155 responses were received.

The purpose of the Community Survey was to gauge Kentish residents’ attitudes to

development of various kinds on Mount Roland, the location of such development and

to determine their most important values associated with Mount Roland.

Explanations of measurement tools:

The Community Survey responses were measured using four tools:

• Question 6 & 7: Likert Scale

• Question 8: Quantitative measuring of Top 5 ideas

• Questions 2 & 4: Social Value Mapping

• Questions 5 & 9: Social Value Mapping to assess preferred experiences

Likert Scale:

Questions 6 and 7 used a four‐point Likert Scale to build a nuanced picture by

measuring the level of support against the level of opposition to specific

development types.

It does this by providing respondents with four boxes: Strongly agree, agree,

disagree, strongly disagree with a proposal. A numerical value is then applied to

each possible answer.

Strongly agree = 1

Agree = 2

Disagree = 3

Strongly disagree = 4

Page | 31

A score for each development option is then calculated by adding the “points’’

scored by each proposal across the 155 survey responses, and dividing by the

number of responses, to get an average figure between 1 and 4. A value below the

mid‐point of 2.5 shows the community – on balance – supports the idea. A value

above the mid‐point shows – on balance – there is community opposition.

The closer to 1, the more support there is.

37 development proposals and statements were used in the Survey to get a sense

of community support, or otherwise, for developments with various

characteristics.

Likert Scale results:

Supported:

Pos. Q. Question/development idea Score

1. 1. I agree tourism is important for Kentish 1.54

2. 14. Canoeing (lakes Barrington or Cethana) 1.55

3. 22. Kayaking (Mersey & Forth rivers) 1.56

4. 23. Lake Barrington water‐based activity 1.57

5. 21. Horse riding safaris (in Forestry land near Beulah) 1.62

6. 34. Wildlife experiences (at foot of Mount Roland) 1.66

7. 2. Support efforts to increase tourism within Kentish 1.67

8. 37. Walking track from Paradise Rd to Gog Falls 1.68

9. 35. Mount Roland‐Cradle Mtn walking track 1.73

10. 36. Mount Roland‐Walls of Jerusalem walking track 1.74

11. 24. Lake Barrington hills (trails & buildings) 1.81

12. 18. Gowrie Park as a tourism hub 1.82

13. 17. Guided wildlife tours 1.84

14. 4. Support development on/adjacent to Mount Roland 1.86

15. 15. Camping infrastructure on mountain 1.93

16. 33. Wilderness retreat (at foot of Mount Roland) 1.94

17. 3. Kentish needs to develop new tourism brand 1.98

Page | 32

18. 10. Abseiling/rock climbing 2.02

19. 31. Stargazing activities/infrastructure (Mount Claude, Van Dyke) 2.05

20. 9. Access options to the summit are important 2.08

21. 25. Mountainbike trails around foot of Mount Roland 2.13

22. 6. Development on western face (Gowrie Park) 2.16

23. 16. Flying fox experience 2.23

24. 5. Development on northern face (Claude Rd) 2.24

25. 19. Hang gliding (Mount Van Dyke or Mount Claude) 2.27

26. 30. Stargazing activities/infrastructure (Mount Roland) 2.28

27. 8. Development on southern face (Sensation Gorge) 2.31

28. 7. Development on eastern face (Gog Range side) 2.35

29. 29. Shelter & interpretative construction at summit 2.37

Not supported:

30. 32. Trailbike/quadbike trails (Forestry land near Beulah) 2.55

31. 12. Bungee jumping (Mount Van Dyke or Claude) 2.63

32. 13. Cable car 2.67

33. 26. Restaurant/other buildings at summit 2.72

34. 11. Building on Mount Roland plateau 2.75

35. 28. Road from Olivers Rd across Mount Claude, Van Dyke 2.75

36. 27. Road from south to Mount Roland plateau 2.81

37. 20. Helicopter flights (inc. helipad on Mount Roland) 2.87

Page | 33

Top 5 Analysis:

Respondents were asked in Question 8 to list their top five priorities for

development on, or adjacent to, Mount Roland. There were 46 development ideas

returned, though most respondents limited themselves to ideas proposed in

Question 7.

The Top 5 analysis takes account of the level of support for an idea but it does not

account for the level of opposition. For this reason, the Likert Scale results are a far

better reflection of the actual support – on balance – in the community for each

proposal.

The table following lists the number of times a development appeared anywhere

among the top 5 in the 155 survey responses. It also provides a weighted score,

which gave greater weight to top priority mentions by attributing 5 points to every

listing as No 1 priority, down to 1 point for every mention in fifth place. This assists

in showing how highly prioritised the development proposal was by respondents

i.e. a high score suggests the proposal was consistently rated at the top of the

priorities.

Top 5 results:

No. Q Proposal # supporting Weighted score

1. 13 Cable car 49 194

2. ‐ Walking tracks 39 133

3. 22/14 Kayaking/canoeing 37 124

4. 27 Road to summit 28 104

5. 17 Guided wildlife tours 32 101

6. 18 Gowrie Park tourism precinct 34 96

7. 26 Restaurant on Mount Roland 30 92

8. 34 Wildlife experiences 32 78

9. 37 Paradise‐Minnow Falls track 22 73

10. 35 Mount Roland‐Cradle track 25 72

11. 30/31 Stargazing 21 67

Page | 34

12. 29 Shelter at summit 25 64

13. ‐ No development 12 60

14. 15 Camping 20 59

15. 23 Lake Barrington (water) 20 51

16. 33 Wilderness retreat 18 51

17. 16 Flying fox 15 42

18. 20 Helicopter 12 41

19. 36 Mount Roland‐Walls track 16 38

20. 10 Abseiling/rock climbing 14 38

21. 25 Mountainbike trails 13 37

22. 19 Hang gliding 10 34

23. 21 Horse riding (Beulah) 15 32

24. 24 Lake Barrington hills trails 10 28

25. ‐ Track improvements 7 26

26. ‐ Free camping facilities 7 19

27. 28 Road across Claude, Van Dyke 6 18

28. 12 Bungee jumping 6 15

29. ‐ Make MR a national park 4 12

30. 32 Trail bike/quad bike trails 5 11

31. ‐ Indigenous interpretation centre 2 10

32. ‐ Limited buildings 3 10

33. ‐ Rafting 3 9

34. ‐ Historical experiences 2 8

35. ‐ Better signs 3 7

36. ‐ TV communication towers 1 4

37. ‐ Innes Track 1 5

38. ‐ Lorinna track 1 3

39. ‐ Better parking 1 2

40. ‐ Fishing 2 2

Page | 35

41. ‐ Picnic parklands 1 2

42 ‐ Canyoning 1 1

43. ‐ Helicopter (not on Mount Roland) 1 1

Social Values Mapping:

This table measures the number of times respondents mentioned a phrase in

Questions 2, 4, 5 and 9.

It reflects the general values Kentish residents ascribe to Mount Roland, its

environs, and the Kentish municipality and also provides the opportunity for them

to express their dreams.

The responses were categorised into themes and their number calculated.

The tables below show the most common Social Values.

Values relating to natural/untouched aesthetic values of Mount Roland:

Scenery/views/ Scenic/rural landscape/view of Mount Roland 52

Majestic/stunning/amazing/very special/ grand 43

Natural/natural beauty/clean‐green/not polluted/unspoiled/untouched 43

Beautiful/picturesque 38

Peaceful/tranquil/serenity/quiet 28

Wilderness experiences 16

Wilderness/nature/bush 10

Mount Roland 10

Mountains and forests 6

Views from top 5

Wildlife 5

Not over‐developed 2

Page | 36

Development on Mount Roland:

Cablecar/Chairlift 23

Cable car not visible 3

Road to summit 9

Road from Union Bridge/or south 2

Road for shuttle bus only 1

Restaurant/kiosk at summit 8

Shelter/toilet at top 5

Resort at top/accommodation 2

Stargazing 2

Activities around Mount Roland or not specified:

Helicopter rides 5

Indigenous tourism industry 4

Kayaking/canoeing 4

All types of adventure sports 3

Picnic 3

Food & wine tours /culinary experiences 3

To enhance healthy lifestyle 3

Horse riding 2

Experience‐based 2

Birdwatching 2

Fishing 2

Abseiling 2

Developments around Mount Roland or not specific:

Flora/fauna/geology interpretation 9

Better signage 7

Gowrie Park as hub 4

History attraction 3

Page | 37

Restaurant at Gowrie Park 2

Wilderness retreat/Gowrie Park wilderness retreat 2

Toilet at bottom 2

Better tourism infrastructure at base 2

Visitor Information Centre at foot 2

Not supported on Mount Roland:

Sustainable/non‐destructive/ discreet/not invasive/low‐impact 36

No development/infrastructure on Mount Roland 33

Develop around/adjacent but not on Mount Roland 13

No noise pollution/trailbikes, helicopter etc 12

No road 11

No cable car 10

Should not impact on wildlife/nature 9

No visible development 7

No restaurant 6

No private commercial control of Mount Roland 5

No helicopter 3

Keep weed free 3

Summary of findings:

1. Respondents strongly supported increased tourism in Kentish. Differences emerged

when respondents were asked how this might be achieved.

2. Walking, water‐based and wilderness experiences were the three most supported

categories.

3. Development on Mount Roland was dramatically less supported than development

around it. The most supported idea involving infrastructure on Mount Roland was

18th of the 37 proposals on the Likert Scale.

Page | 38

4. The greater the infrastructure required, the less it was supported. 15 of the 19

ideas that were least supported or not supported at all, involved significant

infrastructure on the mountain.

5. Quiet activities were considerably supported while noisy activities were among the

least supported. As a generalisation, the top half of the table is filled with

unobtrusive experiences, the bottom half is mostly populated by the more

obtrusive experiences.

6. Eight of the 37 proposed developments were, on balance, not supported. All eight

involved significant infrastructure, or noise.

7. The western end of Mount Roland (Gowrie Park area) was the area most supported

for development. The northern face (Claude Rd), southern side (Sensation Gorge)

and eastern face (Gog Range side) enjoyed only marginal support. Except for

walking trails, development on top was either not strongly supported or opposed.

8. Adventure tourism activities drew little opposition but were also not among the

most strongly supported, suggesting community ambivalence.

9. There were at times seemingly contradictory results between the Top 5 results

(which only measured levels of support for an idea) and the Likert Scale results

(which measured level of support against level of opposition). Some proposals

scored strongly in the Top 5 Analysis (Question 8), but poorly on the Likert Scale

Analysis (Question 7). This was because some of the ideas that have long existed in

the community have developed both significant support (as revealed in the Top 5

ideas), but also significant opposition (which is measured in the Likert Scale

question but not the Top 5 question).

10. There is dramatically stronger support for development of Lake Barrington than

there is for development on Mount Roland.

Page | 39

11. The major social values expressed by respondents, relating to the Mount Roland

precinct, were related to Nature and the precinct’s natural state, along with values

relating to Mount Roland being a majestic, mysterious icon.

12. The most attractive elements of the Kentish lifestyle are the rural, healthy, tranquil

and community‐based elements.

13. One great advantage of living in Kentish is the proximity of Nature in the forms of

wilderness, bush, forest, and mountains.

14. Another advantage is the proximity to the coast and larger population centres.

Analysis:

1. Support for low impact v high impact developments on Mount Roland:

Summary:

The Top 5 Question (question 8) suggests that some of the highest‐infrastructure,

highest‐impact proposals were among the most supported.

However, Question 7 (Likert Scale) revealed high‐infrastructure developments were also

the most opposed. On balance, high‐infrastructure development ideas fared poorly. This

shows the high‐infrastructure ideas polarise the community and are the proposals that

will generate the greatest community opposition.

Likert scale:

Low impact

1. 8 of the top 10 supported developments are low‐impact/infrastructure. The other

two in the top 10 are not developments but vision statements.

Page | 40

2. Only three low‐infrastructure proposals finished in the bottom half of support (hang

gliding, stargazing from Mount Roland and mountain bike trails), though on balance

these were still supported.

3. Water‐based activities, activities at Lake Barrington and walking activities dominate

the most supported developments.

Note: This is based on the premise that walking/cycling/equestrian tracks are

considered low impact.

High impact

1. No high‐impact development proposals were among the 10 most supported in the

Likert Scale question and only three made the top 15 (the vaguely defined proposals

“Gowrie Park tourism hub’’ (12th) and “support development on/adjacent to Mount

Roland’’ (14th) plus camping infrastructure on the mountain (15th) the impact of

which is open to debate.

2. All of the 8 proposals in Question 7 that were on balance not supported involved

significant infrastructure or impact.

3. Of the 20 least supported proposals, 15 involve greater impacts.

Top 5:

The cable car, a road to the summit, a Gowrie Park tourism precinct and a restaurant on

Mount Roland all figured in the top 10 most supported development proposals in

Question 8 (Top 5), which only measured support, not opposition. 6 of the top 10 most

favoured in the Top 5 involved quiet experiences, such as wildlife experiences, walking

and kayaking.

Page | 41

Social values analysis:

The Social Values relating to high impact v low impact development were

overwhelmingly in favour of low impact or no impact.

Low impact High impact

Response No of responses

Response No of responses

Bushwalking experiences 59 Cablecar/Chairlift 23

Natural/unspoiled/untouched 43 Restaurants/other buildings on top

19

Sustainable/non‐destructive/ low‐impact 36 Roads 12

No development/infrastructure on Mount Roland

33 Develop it 10

Wildlife experiences 21 Helicopter rides 5

Develop around/adjacent but not on mtn

13 Gowrie Park as hub 4

No noise pollution/trailbikes, helicopter

12 Cable car not visible 3

No road 11 Viewing platforms 2


No cable car 10

Should not impact on wildlife/nature

9

No visible development 7


No restaurant 6

No helicopter 3

2. Development on mountain/around mountain:

Summary:

There was a clear preference for development away from the mountain, compared to

development on it, in both the Likert Scale questions and the Social Values mapping.

Page | 42

Likert Scale:

1. “I agree tourism is important for Kentish’’: (Question 6a) was the most supported

proposal on the Survey (score 1.54).

2. “I support efforts to increase tourism in Kentish’’ also rated highly – 7th of the 37

proposals and statements, with a strongly favoured score of 1.63.

3. However, tourism development on Mount Roland did not compare favourably with

proposals not involving Mount Roland.

The 7 most supported proposals, and 12 of the top 13, in the Likert Scale did not

involve Mount Roland.

4. Of the 19 options not relating to development on the mountain (Lake Barrington,

Beulah forests, experiences at the base of Mount Roland and generalised

statements) 12 appeared in the top 13, 15 appeared in the top 20 and only two were

not supported.

5. Of the 14 ideas specifically on the mountain, only one made the top 10 (walking

track to Minnow Falls) and 4 made the top 20 (Minnow Falls track, camping,

abseiling and access options to the summit).

6. Of the 14 ideas specifically relating to Mount Roland, 11 were among the 14 least

favoured developments.

7. There was greater support for high‐infrastructure tourism development away from

Mount Roland, compared to high‐infrastructure development on it.

Page | 43

Significant‐infrastructure proposals, by site:

Proposal Pos. Likert score

Lake Barrington hills (trails & buildings) 11th 1.79 (strongly supported)

Gowrie Park as hub 12th 1.81 (strongly supported)

Wilderness retreat at foot of Mount Roland 16th 1.89 (strongly supported)

More access options to summit 20th 2.05 (supported)

Shelter or interpretative centre at/near summit 29th 2.33 (moderately supported)

Bungee jumping (site not specified) 31st 2.60 (not supported)

Cable car 32nd 2.64 (not supported)

Restaurant at/near summit 34th 2.72 (not supported)

Other buildings at/near summit 35th 2.72 (not supported)

Road to summit 36th 2.77 (not supported)

Helicopter with landing pad on plateau 37th 2.83 (not supported)

8. Further evidence of the clear line between development on Mount Roland and

development elsewhere, comes from the three proposals in which an option was given

for siting a development on Mount Roland, and a separate option for siting the same

development elsewhere. In each case, the “elsewhere’’ option was viewed more

favourably.

Development on Mount Roland v Development away from Mount Roland Area Likert

position Likert score Area Likert

position Likert score

Building on Mount Roland

34th /35th 2.72/2.72

(not supported)

Building near Lake Barrington

11th 1.79

(strongly supported)

Stargazing facilities on Mount Roland

26th 2.25 (supported)

Stargazing facilities on Van Dyke or Claude

19th 2.04 (supported)

Road from south to Mount Roland summit

36th 2.77 (not supported)

Road across Mount Van Dyke, Claude

33rd 2.71 (not supported)

Top 5 analysis:

While the Likert Scale showed high‐infrastructure options were poorly supported, they

did rate well in the Top 5 question (Question 8), showing those that support

Page | 44

development on the mountain favour significant‐scale developments. There was also no

distinction, on this measure, between development on Mount Roland and around it.

Proposal Pos. Respondents Weighted score

Cable car 1 49 213

Road to summit 4 30 114

Gowrie Park tourism precinct 6 35 98

Restaurant on Mount Roland 7 30 92

Shelter at summit 12 25 64

Wilderness retreat 16 19 52

Flying fox 17 17 48

Lake Barrington hills trails/buildings 25 13 37

Road across Mount Claude, Van Dyke 28 6 18

Social Values:

See social values, “Where To Develop’’

3. Where to develop on Mount Roland:

Summary:

Question 6, which distinguished between areas (faces) of the mountain, showed slight

support for all sides, but not development on the summit/plateau.

Development was marginally supported on all four sides of Mount Roland, in order of

support: the western end (near Gowrie Park), northern face (Claude Rd), southern side

(Sensation Gorge) and the eastern face (Gog Range side).

However, development on the plateau/summit was opposed more than supported. In

fact, development ideas for the summit/plateau were 5 of the 8 proposals not

supported. Those developments most supported were away from Mount Roland.

Page | 45

Likert Scale analysis:


Lake Barrington hills (trails & buildings) 11 1.79 (strongly supported)

Gowrie Park as a tourism hub 12 1.81 (strongly supported)

Wilderness retreat (at foot of Mount Roland) 16 1.89 (strongly supported)

Western face (Gowrie Park) 22 2.13 (supported)

Northern face (Claude Rd) 24 2.22 (marginally supported)

Southern face (Sensation Gorge) 27 2.27 (marginally supported)

Eastern face (Gog Range side) 28 2.32 (marginally supported)

Shelter & interpretative construction at summit 29 2.33 (marginally supported)

Cable car 32 2.64 (marginally not supported)

Road across Mount Claude, Van Dyke 33 2.71 (marginally not supported)

Restaurant/other buildings at summit 34 2.71 (marginally not supported)

Building on Mount Roland plateau 35 2.72 (marginally not supported)

Road from south to Mount Roland plateau 36 2.77 (not supported)

Top 5 analysis:

The Top 5 question did not give a clear theme about placement of development on the

mountain.

Social values:

While there were few response themes in Questions 2, 4, 5 or 9 that specifically alluded

to siting of development on and around Mount Roland, specific themes clearly emerged

that visual, wilderness and scenic values should be considered in any decision about the

placement of development.

However, those who mentioned support for a particular development in these questions

clearly did so knowing there would be visual, aesthetic or environmental impacts.

4. Polarising proposals v generally supported proposals:

Polarising ideas:

Some proposals were strongly supported in Question 8 – which asked respondents to

prioritise their top 5 suggestions for development, but were at the bottom of the Likert

Page | 46

Scale section (question 7), which measured support against opposition, ), showing while

many respondents were for them, there were even more against them.

Top 5 Likert Scale

Proposal Pos. No in support Weighted score Likert pos. Score

Cable car/chairlift 1st 49 213 32nd 2.64 (not supported)

Road to summit 4th 30 114 36th 2.77 (not supported)

Restaurant 7th 30 92 34th 2.72 (not supported)

Widely supported ideas supported:

These proposals appear high on both the Likert and Top 5 tables, and are therefore

generally supported:

Top 5 Likert Scale

Proposal Pos. No. support Weighted score

Likert pos. Score

Walking tracks 2nd 9th 10th 19th

109 329 9th 10th 19th 1.72 (strong support)

Kayaking/canoeing 3rd 38 125 2nd 3rd 1.55 (strong support)

Wildlife experiences 5th, 8th 65 191 6th 13th 1.63 (strong support)

Gowrie Park hub 6th 35 98 12th 1.81 (strong support)

Camping 14th 20 59 15th 1.89 (strong support)

Lake Barrington 15th, 23rd 36 98 4th 11th 1.68 (strong support)

Wilderness retreat 16th 19 52 16th 1.89 (strong support)

Page | 47

Opposed ideas: The following score poorly on both scales and are therefore widely opposed:

Top 5 Likert Scale

Proposal Pos. No. support Weighted score Likert pos. score

Trailbike/quadbike 30th 5 11 30th 2.52 (not supported)

Road Claude & Van Dyke 28th 6 18 36th 2.77 (not supported)

Bungee jumping 26th 8 22 31st 2.60 (not supported)

5. Bushwalking:

Summary:

Bushwalking tracks were among the most supported of any proposal and one of the few

development types supported on the Mount Roland faces or plateau.


All four walking options in Question 7 were among the 11 most supported development

ideas. The Likert Score showed all were strongly supported.


Walking track Paradise Rd to Minnow Falls 8th 1.64 (strongly supported)

Mount Roland‐Cradle Mtn walking track 9th 1.69 (strongly supported)

Mount Roland‐Walls of Jerusalem walking track 10th 1.69 (strongly supported)


Top 5 analysis:

Bushwalking was clearly the most supported development proposal in the Top 5

(question 8), and 3 specific trails all finished in the top 10.

In the Top 5 analysis, four types of bushwalking suggestions emerged: bushwalking

(generally), the Minnow Falls track from Paradise Rd, the Mount Roland‐Cradle Mtn and

Mount Roland‐Walls of Jerusalem options.

Page | 48

When combined, “bushwalking’’ in totality was clearly the most supported development

idea. Individually, they rated 2nd, 9th, 10th and 19th respectively out of 46 suggestions.

When weighted, they had a total of 316 points. Second was the cable car on 194 and

third was canoeing/kayaking at 124.


Walking tracks 2nd 40 138

Paradise‐Minnow Falls track

9th 24 79

Mount Roland‐Cradle track 10th 27 79

Mount Roland‐Walls track 19th 18 43

Social values:

Question 5 asked respondents to say what sort of tourism and recreational

developments they would support. Bushwalking had far more supportive responses

than any other.

Response Occurrence Bushwalking 19 Better walking track maintenance/standard 11 Guided walks/eco tours 8 Easy walking track/better access for all 7 Access for disabled/elderly (O’Neill’s Creek) 5 Shorter walking track(O’Neill’s Creek track boring) 4 More walking options 2 Fix Mount Roland front track 2 Cethana to Powerful Creek 1 Track to Minnow Falls 1 Track from top to Mole Creek side 1 Walks to falls in Wilmot area 1 Old Lorinna Rd as walking track 1 Total: 63 6. Trails for other uses: Summary:

Building on the bushwalking trails theme, trails for other uses, primarily horse riding and

mountain biking, were also mentioned by many respondents. Horse riding in Forestry

Tasmania‐managed land at Beulah, wilderness experiences, Lake Barrington trails and

Page | 49

mountainbike trails were all supported in the Likert Scale, though none featured

prominently in the Top 5 priorities.

Likert Scale analysis: Proposal Pos. Likert score

Horse riding 5th 1.60 (strongly supported)

Wilderness experiences 6th 1.62 (strongly supported)


Mountainbike trails (around foot of Mount Roland) 21st 2.07 (supported)

Trailbike/quadbike trails 30th 2.52 (not supported)

Top 5 analysis: Proposal Pos. Respondents Weighted score

Mountainbike trails 22nd 14 39

Horse riding (Beulah) 25th 16 33

Lake Barrington hills trails 23rd 13 37

Trail bike/quad bike trails 30th 5 11

Social values: There was not significant mention of non‐bushwalking trail experiences among the social value statements in questions 2, 4 5 or 9. 7. Wildlife/wilderness experiences: Summary:

While most of the proposals could be considered as wildlife/wilderness based, this

section applies to only those that are specifically focused on that element. There was a

clear preference for activities centred on experiencing the wilderness, be it by walking,

or on horseback.


The 3 wilderness/wildlife‐based proposals were in the top half of proposals on the Likert

Scale, and all enjoyed strong support when support was measured against opposition.

Page | 50


Wildlife experiences (at foot of Mount Roland) 6th 1.66 (strongly supported)

Guided wildlife tours 13th 1.84 (strongly supported)

Wilderness retreat (at foot of Mount Roland) 16th 1.94 (strongly supported)

Top 5 analysis:

The three most commonly mentioned wilderness/wildlife experiences were all in the

top half of the 43 ideas proposed by respondents. 2 of the 3 were in the top 10.


Guided wildlife tours 5th 32 101

Wildlife experiences 8th 32 78

Wilderness retreat 16th 18 51

Social values:

The value of wilderness and wildlife experiences were the most often mentioned social

values respondents ascribed to Mount Roland and Kentish.

Mention of scenery/views etc was the most common phrase in the Survey responses.

Natural/clean‐green/unspoiled etc was the third‐most common phrase. They were only

separated by the combined total of superlatives (e.g. majestic/stunning/amazing/very

special/spectacular/awesome/inspiring/grand).

Scenery/views/ Scenic/rural landscape/view of MR 52

Natural/natural beauty/clean‐green/not polluted/unspoiled/untouched 43

Beautiful/picturesque 38

Bushwalking 19

Wildlife experiences 16

Better walking track maintenance/standard 11


Guided walks/eco tours 8

Easy walking track/better access for all 7

Fresh air/clean air 6

Page | 51


Wildlife 5

Shorter walking track(O’Neill’s Creek track boring) 4

Tracks for disabled/elderly (O’Neill’s Creek) 3

More walking options 2

8. Adventure tourism:

Summary:

“Adventure tourism’’ is a very subjective term as one person’s adventure may be a

gentle kayak on Lake Barrington, while another would expect an adrenaline‐rush. For

the purposes of this survey, adventure tourism is limited to “action’’ experiences

involving rapid movement, danger or adrenaline. The action‐adventure proposals in the

Community Survey comprised: abseiling/rock climbing, bungee jumping, flying fox, hang

gliding, mountain biking, trail bike/quadbike trails.

It is clear from these proposals being rated in the middle of each table, that Kentish

residents do not have strong opinions on support or opposition to the development of

such proposals.

Likert scale:

None were among the top 15 most supported proposals on the Likert scale, but four

rated between No 18 and No 25. The reason for this is not clear.

However, trail bikes and bungee jumping were among the eight proposals not

supported.


Abseiling/rock climbing 18th 1.99 (strongly supported)

Mountainbike trails around foot of Mount Roland 21st 2.07 (supported)

Flying fox experience 23rd 2.17 (supported)

Hang gliding (Mount Van Dyke or Mount Claude) 25th 2.22 (supported)

Trailbike/quadbike trails (Forestry land near Beulah) 30th 2.52 (marginally not supported)

Bungee jumping (Mount Van Dyke or Claude) 31st 2.60 (not supported)

Page | 52

Top 5 Analysis:

Similar to the Likert Scale results, reaction to adventure activities was unremarkable

with most ranking about halfway down the list of 43 ideas (rafting and canyoning were

not listed on the Survey so the low response rate should not be compared to the other

proposals, given almost all respondents seemed to stick with what was mentioned on

the survey).


Flying fox 17th 17 48

Abseiling/rock climbing 18h 16 44

Hang gliding 20th 13 41

Mountainbike trails 22nd 14 39

Bungee jumping 26th 8 22

Trail bike/quad bike trails 30th 5 11

Rafting 33rd 3 9

Canyoning 42nd 1 1

Social values:

There were 10 mentions among the supported experiences in the Social Values

statements that supported adrenaline tourism, and one against it. However, common

themes among the Social Value statements, such as Mount Roland being unspoiled (43),

“Non‐invasive Development’’ (36), “No Development’’ (33), “no noise pollution’’ (12)

and “no visible development’’ (7) should be considered in any action/adventure

development proposal.

Page | 53

9. Cable car:

Summary:

This is clearly a polarising proposal. It rated as the most supported single idea among

respondents’ Top 5 priorities (Question 8) and also figured prominently in Question 5 –

a similar question which asked what tourism and leisure experiences would be

supported.

The cable car was the most often mentioned individual development in the Top 5 (49

supporters, 31 of which listed it as top priority and 4 listed it as second‐most important).

It was only outnumbered by the totality of bushwalking ideas, though none of these

individually topped the cable car.

However, on the Likert Scale (question 7), which balanced support against opposition,

the cable car was one of eight proposals that was not supported, and was 32nd of the 37

proposals.

It received more “strongly disagree’’ responses than any other proposal.

Illustrating the polarity of public opinion, it received 52 “strongly agree’’ responses, 21

“agree’’, 14 “disagree’’ and 68 “strongly disagree.’’

Likert scale:


Cable car 32nd 2.64 (not supported)

Top 5 Analysis:


Cable car 1st 49 213

Social values:

The cable car was the most often mentioned specific development idea (23 mentions).

However, it was also the specific development second‐most mentioned as being

opposed (10 mentions; road had 11 negative mentions). When other values, such as “No

Development” or “Infrastructure’’ (33 mentions) and “Development Around Mountain,

Not On It’’ (13 mentions) are considered, considerable opposition was apparent.

Page | 54

Note: the 7 “No Visible Development’’ mentions were not included in this as a cable car

development may not necessarily be visible from Sheffield/Staverton/Kentish lowlands.

But it is noted that many Sheffield residents believe it would be visible and this may

have influenced their response.

10. Roads:

Summary:

One of the key ways Mount Roland can contribute in a greater way to the Kentish

tourism industry is through a greater number of visitors coming to the top to see the

views. However, it is clear from tourism feedback through the Sheffield Visitor

Information Centre and tourism operators, that one of the greatest impediments to

getting people to the top is what occasional and recreational bushwalkers see as an

overly arduous 6‐7 hour return walk. The only way to get around this is to find a way to

the top that is less strenuous, or shorter.

To address this, the idea of building a vehicular road to the summit, or near the summit,

has long been proposed. As with the cable car, a road to the summit scored well among

people listing their top 5 development ideas, being the fourth most popular idea.

However, the Likert Scale showed respondents were – on balance – opposed to the

construction of a road as those opposed outnumbered supporters 88‐57. A road from

Olivers Rd across Mount Claude and Mount Van Dyke was also not supported.

Likert scale:

The road proposal was strongly supported by 25 respondents, supported by 35, opposed

by 23 and strongly opposed by 66 respondents (6 did not answer the question).

Subsequently, the road proposals were the second‐least and third‐least supported

proposals among the 37 in Question 7 (helicopter flights with a landing pad on top being

the only idea less popular).

Proposal Pos. Likert Score

Road from Olivers Rd across Mount Claude, Van Dyke 35th 2.75 (not supported)

Road from south to Mount Roland plateau 36th 2.81 (not supported)

Page | 55

Top 5 Analysis:

Of 30 people who named the road to the summit among their top 5 ideas, 14 named it

top priority and 2 named it their second‐biggest priority. The road across Mount Van

Dyke and Mount Claude was mentioned by just 6 respondents.


Road to summit 4th 30 114

Road across Claude, Van Dyke 28th 6 18

Social values:

Twelve people mentioned a road to the summit among their preferred experiences in

Questions 2 and 5 and 9. However, 11 specifically mentioned opposition to it – the most

mentions of opposition of any idea. Additionally, a road would be subject to the most‐

often mentioned Value Statements against development, such as No Development (33),

non‐destructive development only (36) unspoiled State (43), and development around

but not on the mountain (13). This should be considered in any decision‐making about

construction of a road.

Page | 56

APPENDIX I: MOUNT ROLAND TOURISM STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

A qualitative survey was conducted by telephone with 42 tourism operators in Kentish.

Most of the respondents interviewed were owner/operators. The interviews were based

on nine questions, and sought information on what ‘experience’ is working with visitors

now, whether there is potential and/or capacity to expand the current tourism

experience, and what do they wish/think/hope expansion may look like.

Like the community survey the responses ranged from no development,

environmentally sensitive development to high infrastructure cable car development.

Although there was some support for a cable car style development, it was not

definitive, and opinions varied about the infrastructure positioning, cost and additional

infrastructure requirements.

Improved accessibility and walking tracks on Mount Roland were strongly favoured as

drawcards for overnight stays, along with more dining options. Most interviewees

believed that should tourism demand increase, they had the capacity to respond, and

also that the private sector was in a better position to initiate and facilitate tourism

development in the Kentish region than state bodies. As one respondent pointed out

however, this is a catch 22 situation, as more investment will not be feasible until visitor

numbers increase.

Page | 57

Tourism Operator Telephone Survey Questionnaire Number

1. Do you have a vision for Mount Roland? 2. (Building on this) – Do you have any expectations for Mount Roland? 3. Has your business the capacity to expand in the future to cater for an increase in visitor

numbers? 4. What type of attractions would hold tourists overnight in the Kentish area? 5. What is your opinion on the ultimate Mount Roland experience? 6. In your opinion who would have the authority, entrepreneurial skills and ability to facilitate

Mount Roland development?

7. What do you think are the major tourism assets for Kentish?

8. Are there any tourism aspects in relation to Kentish that you have some concerns/

reservations about?

Any other comments you would like to add?

Page | 58

42 Respondents contributed to this survey. Attempts were made to contact more

tourism operators, but they either could not be contacted or were unavailable to

discuss. The values were in order of recognition

(1) Cable Car broken into three categories For, Definite or Maybe and against.

(2) Mount Roland as an Icon

(3)Accessibility

(4) Co‐operative networking

(5) Activities (Trail Riding)

(6) No vision

(7) Road Access

(8) Walking Tracks two threads of comment (1) Signage (2) Maintenance

(9) No development of Mount Roland

(10) Mount Roland not overdeveloped distinct from no development at all

(11) Steam Train establishment

(12) Development of Summit infrastructure

(13) Recognition of significant history of Kentish

(14) Pro development

(15) Pro development but with a requirement for community consultation

(16) Need for improved promotion of the region

(17) Quietness

Question (1) Do you have a vision for Mount Roland?

• There was strong support for a cable car up Mount Roland. 9 (21%) respondents

fully supported it, 5 (12%) were maybes with location being important, and 1(2%)

was definitely against.

• 11(26%) respondents had no vision for the mountain (ambivalent)

• 15 (36%) respondents recognised the mountain as iconic.

• Only 2 wanted no development at all and 1 not over developed

• 9 (21%) respondents wanted greater accessibility to the mountain and most of

these supported a Cable Car as a means to increase accessibility.

Page | 59

• Only 4 (9.5%) respondents indicate strong support for walking tracks with signage

being a concern

Question (2) (Building on this) Do you have any expectations for Mount Roland?

Expectations % No.

improved walking tracks 26 11

better tracks to improve accessibility to the mountain 19 8

Cable car 16 7

No response / no comment 24 10

Summit infrastructure 9.5 4

Improved marketing 7 3

• A mention was made that careful consideration be given to the safety aspects of

increased accessibility to the mountain. The weather variability could endanger

inexperienced hikers.

Summary Question (3) Has your business the ability to expand in the future for an

increase in visitor numbers?

• 38 (90%) respondents were positive in their ability to grow if demand dictated.

• 4 (9.5%)had either no desire or not the capacity to expand.

Question (4) What type of attractions would hold tourists overnight in the Kentish area? (More than one answer per respondent) Attraction % No

Improved or better maintained walking tracks 33 14

Improved dining options – choice/ opening hours/ variety of food offered 26 11

Cable car 19 8

Murals, as they are/ expanded 19 8

Cradle Mountain 12 5

Tazmazia 9.5 4

Steam train 9.5 4

L. Barrington 7 3

Mole Creek Caves 7 3

Steam Fest 7 3

Overflow from Cradle Mountain (no vacancies/ cheaper options) 9.5 4

Page | 60

The lack of a caravan park in Sheffield itself and the lack of amenities for free parking in

Sheffield were raised.

The neglect of development on the Wilmot side of Lake Barrington was of interest but

not statistically important.

Question (5) What is your opinion of the ultimate Mount Roland experience?

Experience % No.

Walking tracks and climbing 48 20

Ability to access summit 36 15

Cable car 24 10

Cable car, with limitations 5 2

An icon, with various development options 21 9

Summit infrastructure, avoid skyline 14 6

Road access 12 5

Limit development on mountain 7 3

Need more promotion of existing attractions 5 2

• 2 noted that the outstanding geological features in the region often went

unnoticed.

Question (6) In your opinion who would have the authority, entrepreneurial skills and

ability to facilitate Mount Roland development?

Authority % No.

Private sector 45 19

State government 24 10

Kentish Council 14 6

Federal government 2 1

Unsure/ no comment 7.5 3

No development 7.5 3

Total 100 42

Page | 61

However

• 8 (19%) did not think the local Council had the ability to fund, manage or facilitate

the development process.

• 1 (2%) did not want the State (PWS) to be involved at all.

• Zoning was criticised, and 2 (4%) respondents believed Federal Hotels received too

good a deal from the Government.

Question (7) What do you think are the major tourism assets for Kentish? (More than

one answer per respondent)

Tourism asset % No.

Murals 55 23

Mount Roland, scenery 36 15

Cradle Mountain drawcard 33 14

Lake Barrington 28.5 12

Mural fest 14 6

Tazmazia 14 6

Sheffield itself 12 5

Ambience of district 12 5

Steamfest 12 5

Walks 9.5 4

• 4 indicated walks as an asset. This low number contrasts with the strong support for

walk development expressed earlier, suggesting walking tracks were presently not

assets, but could be with maintenance or expansion.

• Fishing was mentioned as the most favoured activity. Many other activities and

assets were mentioned by individual respondents. The quaint names of the district

and features of the region were also mentioned.

Page | 62

Question (8) Are there any tourism aspects in relation to Kentish that you have some

concerns or reservations about?

Concerns % No

Council processes 17 7

Over regulation 14 6

Road infrastructure 12 5

Hours of operation; stay open longer 9.5 4

Free camping 7 3

Signage 7 3

More professionalism 7 3

No concerns 17 7

• Other issues were cited by individual respondents; only issues cited by 3 or more

respondents are listed.

• The number who have some issues with Council processes is similar to the number

of respondents who cited little or no confidence in Council managing development

(See Question 6).

Question (9) Other Comments

Most respondents declined to add any further comments.

• 2 respondents indicated they were more than happy with the status quo; 4

supported a cable car

• 1 categorically opposed a cable car

• 3 supported tourism‐ based community developments.

Struggles with Council procedures and regulations, mentioned in Question 8, was only

mentioned by 2 respondents in general comments.

Page | 63

APPENDIX J: GOVERNANCE AND SPECIAL INTEREST STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS

Interviews were conducted face‐to‐face with representatives of 20 organisations and

four prominent Kentish residents. The stakeholder groups included local governance

organisations, land managers, Six Rivers Aboriginal community and sport and

recreational organisations. The 20 organisations were chosen because they had a

specific and defined role to play in Mount Roland development, were a key regulatory or

statutory authority, had specific knowledge to provide, or were a key potential provider

of support. The four individuals were interviewed because they had particular

knowledge of an aspect relating to Mount Roland.

Each interviewee was asked about their ideas for development, the impediments,

challenges and obstacles they saw to development generally, and specific development

proposals, and other issues specific to their field that related to tourism development on

and around Mount Roland.

The 20 Governance organisations:

Kentish Council Cradle Coast Authority

Parks & Wildlife Service Cradle Coast NRM

Tourism Tasmania Forestry Tasmania

Hydro Tasmania Sport and Recreation Tasmania

SRT mountain bikes, Luke Chiu Lake Barrington Management Committee

Sheffield Visitor Information Centre SRT Wilderness Program, David Clarke

Inland Fisheries Six Rivers Aboriginal Community

Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council

Cradle Coast Mountain Biking Club North‐West Walking Club

Launceston Walking Club Hedonistic Hiking

These sources provided a clear picture of, among other things:

• The Regulatory and Statutory framework

• Land management issues

Page | 64

• Cultural, social and environmental considerations

• Available support networks, programs and organisations

• Funding options

• Infrastructure requirements

• Industry or process knowledge

• Tourism requirements

• Information on the current tourism experience

• Challenges and potential obstacles

• Potential ideas

Page | 65

APPENDIX K: MOUNT ROLAND PUBLIC FORUM

A public forum was held in Sheffield on April 12, 2011, to share feedback from the

community survey and further canvas public opinion around development for Mount

Roland. The responses ranged from no development to high level infrastructure

development. When asked for a show of hands in relation to a cable car, of the 102

people present, 28 people supported a cable car, and 39 were against it. The remainder

did not express an opinion, which may be because they had no firm opinion, or because

their response would be determined by the characteristics of an actual proposal. A

number of speakers spoke of the economic imperative of development, others

supported only sensitive development, and one spoke of the need for the Kentish

Council to develop appropriate guidelines for development, and then let private

enterprise work within those set parameters. Attendees were also reminded that Mount

Roland can be seen from many places along the Central and North‐West Coasts of

Tasmania, and many Tasmanians feel a connection to it.

Public forum summary of proceedings

Welcome:

The Mount Roland study team comprising graduates and students from the Institute for

Regional Development, Cradle Coast campus of the University of Tasmania, and the

Mount Roland Steering Committee comprising members of the Kentish Council, Cradle

Coast Authority, Tourism Tasmania, Parks & Wildlife and Cradle Coast Natural Resource

Management welcome you to a public forum to discuss the community consultation on

development of Mount Roland.

The background:

Mount Roland is among the most significant geographic formations in the state’s north.

It is the most visible landmark seen by visitors arriving by air or sea on the North‐West

Page | 66

Coast as well as a signal to those arriving by road from the east that they are entering

Cradle Coast Country. Yet few have close‐up encounters with Mount Roland.

The Mount Roland Tourism Precinct Study aims to identify experience gaps and

opportunities for the Mount Roland precinct, and to determine viable development

opportunities consistent with the natural and cultural values, and which appeal to key

target markets.

The goal:

To increase visitation to the Mount Roland area and to position Mount Roland as a

‘must see’ destination. The development strategy will have at its heart the community’s

values about its mountain. Any development options proposed must also fit within the

regulatory framework.

The path so far: • A Community Survey was distributed to every household in Kentish via The Kentish

Chronicle on 1 March. There were 145 responses by mid March.

• The team interviewed 42 Kentish tourism operators to assess how they believe the

mountain could play a role in increasing visitor numbers to Kentish.

• Furthermore, 19 key governance and community stakeholders have been

interviewed to develop a detailed understanding of the regulations, requirements

and considerations of any development on the mountain or its precinct. These

include Kentish council officers, land managers such as Parks & Wildlife, Forestry

Tasmania and Hydro Tasmania, the Sheffield Visitor Information Centre, and those

with a particular interest such as the Six Rivers indigenous community. Local

sporting and recreation clubs were also consulted.

Key findings in the consultation process so far:

The primary value expressed related to the majestic and mysterious nature of Mount

Roland ‐‐ the community’s ‘spiritual rock’‐‐ and the unspoiled wilderness in the

surrounding area.

Page | 67

Development options most supported are:

• Wildlife experiences (at foot of Mount Roland)

• Walking track from Union Bridge to Minnow Falls

• Mount Roland‐Cradle Mount walking track

• Mount Roland‐Walls of Jerusalem walking track

• Gowrie Park as a tourism hub

There is overall general support for: new and improved walking tracks; shorter walking

tracks (30 minutes) with easy access; varied activities; road signage and maintenance,

and accessibility to Mount Roland.

Where to from here:

The team will consider your further input and prepare development scenarios, with a

detailed report to the Steering Committee by the end of May, with a final report

available via Council later this year.

If you would like to add further comments, please write it here and hand it to the study

team tonight, or hand it into the Council office. Alternatively, email your thoughts and

ideas to [email protected] by 20 April.

Thank you very much for your attendance and community participation.

Summaries from every speaker at the meeting

• Q2: Need Accessibility to Mount Roland

• Q3: Ongoing infrastructure – who maintains?

• Q4: Majestic Mountain – tourists want to see view, maybe go to top of Mount

Claude track.

• Q5: Love to go to top of Mount Roland – need some access for those unable to get

to top. 6 hour round trip is a turn‐off

• Q6: John Dyer (Sheffield) wants to share top with others. Asked for show of hands

of those who have been to top in past 12 months (20)

• Q7: Forestry activity on foothills – Chris advised not in our brief

Page | 68

• Q8: How many of the team have been to the top? Answer half

• Q9: Sensitive access to top – how many would consider getting to top (25)

• Q10: Is Council prepared to have referendum before any changes to development.

Answer was No, but plenty of community consultation.

• Q11: Shane Harkness –childhood memory of Mount Roland. View is not just

Kentish’s, many places on the NW Coast.

o Want cable car (28)

o No (39)

• Q12: Tourists want to get to top – cannot make it – too far and strenuous. Who

maintains track? Chris answered PWL – has limited funding for upgrading tracks.

Contingent on State Govt Policy. Must look at other ways of maintaining without

relying on whim of State Government

• Q13: Cairns cable car – people upset at first, now accepting. Need some mechanical

access to get to top maybe at back – Private funding

• Q14: Long time resident (1950) has been up mountain – age not barrier as 75 year

old up there last week. Seven people 53‐75. Ignored beauty of mountain???? At top

of mountain is just a pile of rocks. Worked in all parts of Tasmania – surveyed. Since

1850s Tasmania has lost and won’t get back. Must look after future for our kids.

• Q15: Michael Brooks – need safe platform at top. Access to top from Mole Creek is

quite flat

• Q16: Brian Inder – economic imperative to develop cable car. Businesses are

closing, have serious responsibility for our kids futures – they need to have some

way to make a life. Have no right to stop a cable car – all from venture capital – feed

back $1 million to Council. Proposal to go to High School and see what kids want the

cable car – let them debate

• Q17: Cable car will take people away from Sheffield – infrastructure will be built

away, Sheffield will not gain. Develop Redwater Creek Railway to extend to Railton

as first proposed

Page | 69

• Q18: Bruce French‐ Land holder‐ walking track from Cyril O’Neill’s to Paradise is

relatively flat. Look after mountain – forestry – trees????

• Q19: Mountain tracks in South Australia regular club sponsored assistance to

upgrade tracks – there are other ways of maintaining tracks – show of hands for

volunteers – not sure how many put up hand (6??)

• Q20: Fleur spoke of ‘voluntourism’ attracting people to come here and work whilst

on holiday. Green Corps was mentioned as helping out previously

• Q21: Younger Guy – people get to 19 and leave as there is no work. So we want

Sheffield to turn into Gowrie Park? It is up to you guys!

• Q22: Max Wood – 34yrs lived here – tourism is important, but if not careful will

prostitute ourselves and our mountain

• Q23: Couple of years resident – 4 chn – kids will follow dad’s opinion. Excited about

some development

o Must have sensitive development

o Hang glider guy in callipers

o Some flying sport/hang‐gliding

• Q24/Q25: Stephen Brown – 1st rock climb 30 years ago. Look at Bridport 12,000

tourists to 2 golf courses – private sensitive development. Have better

opportunities here to sensitively develop

• Q26: 66 years old – feel for Mount Roland – looking to future – must be sustainable

for kids, whatever is developed must be sensitive. E.g. Cradle Mount is

overdeveloped. Council needs guidelines for development – private enterprise will

know how to work within guidelines. Must leave this place better than when we

found it!

• Q27: Why Mount Roland focus – Chris answered – steering committee directions

• New to area – Mount Roland is feature – not a scaffold to put things on – not

deteriorate in 40‐50 years – ongoing maintenance

• Q28: Questioned whether indigenous issues addressed – affirmative from Six Rivers

rep. Chris answered that Gog Range area not in brief

Page | 70

• Q29: Denis Crosswell – business in town – travelled in Europe – access to mountains

– always able to walk – must get people to top – commercial operations

• Q30: Gold Coast – constant fight re cable car – knocked back environmentally.

• Q31: Editorial in Advocate – Is a proposal for Cable Car before Council currently?

Answer “No”

• Q32: Passion for Mount Roland – experience on top is personal – right away from

everything and everyone. Do not need hordes of people on top.

• Q33: Andrew Tranter – Gondola that blends, tourism is for all of Tasmania, its jobs

and it must inspire!!

Page | 71

APPENDIX L: COMMUNITY CONSULTATION SUMMARY

1. Community Survey respondents, Tourism Industry respondents and key

stakeholders strongly support increased tourism in Kentish.

2. The tourism product should complement Mount Roland, not exploit it.

3. The community is generally in favour of improving the tourism prospects of

the Mount Roland Precinct, however there are deep divisions and little

consensus around what should or could be done.

4. Limited access to the top of Mount Roland is one of the biggest hurdles to

attracting more visitors. Means would need to be found for those less fit,

however, the common means of getting less fit people to the top of a

mountain are not supported by the community.

5. People expect to be able to drive to the summit of Mount Roland, according to

tourism operators

6. There was broad support, particularly among tourism operators, for easier

means of getting to the summit, though respondents to the community survey

and at the public forum were, on balance, slightly against a cable car.

7. Development on Mount Roland was significantly less supported by the Kentish

community than development around it. The most supported idea in the

Community Survey involving infrastructure development on Mount Roland

was 18th of the 37 proposals.

8. The greater the infrastructure required, the less it was supported by the

community. 15 of the 19 ideas that were least supported or not supported at

all, involved significant infrastructure on the mountain.

Page | 72

9. The Kentish community was much more supportive of unobtrusive tourism

activities than those that were noisy, visible or may result in a change to the

values ascribed to Mount Roland.

10. The western end of Mount Roland (Gowrie Park area) was the area most

supported for development by both the community and industry members.

There was a divide between the community and industry stakeholders over

support for development on top of the mountain – the industry was, in the

main, supportive but the community was less so.

11. Those development ideas that have been in the community for some time are

among the most supported proposals, but they are also the most opposed.

Specifically, a cable car, road to the summit, helicopter rides and a restaurant

on the summit enjoyed moderate to considerable support, but were also the

four most opposed ideas.

12. There are significant regulatory, legal and statutory standards and obligations

to be met relating to development on Mount Roland, but all can be met by the

eight proposals contained in this report.

13. There is strong support among land managers of the region (Parks & Wildlife

Service and Forestry Tasmania) for development and each is willing to provide

any support they can. However, current budgetary constraints mean they may

not be able to support financially in any meaningful way in the short‐term.

14. Key landholders (Parks & Wildlife and Forestry Tasmania) are hesitant to take

on developments for which they will be responsible for maintenance, again

due to budgetary considerations.

15. There is strong support among stakeholders such as the Kentish Council,

Tourism Tasmania and Cradle Coast Authority to facilitate and assist

development and developers.

Page | 73

16. Sheffield’s greatest and most unique assets are its accessible wilderness, rural

vistas and laidback rural lifestyle

17. Current attractors to Kentish (murals etc) are strongly supported by the

industry, the community and other stakeholders and are very successful in

attracting visitors. However, there is a general perception a more diversified

range of attractions are required if visitor numbers are to increase.

18. Signage and promotion are critical areas to be addressed.

19. Kentish’s online presence is inconsistent: That which exists is very good, but

there are many players in the industry not represented online at all.

20. Greater co‐operation among tourism industry operators and an improvement

in the availability/opening hours of key tourism services is a key to improving

the Kentish tourism experience.

21. Sheffield, despite its attractions, is not viewed as a tourist‐friendly town by

virtue of its inconsistent and often short opening hours, limited services, lack

of diversity of accommodation in Sheffield town, lack of facilities such as picnic

areas, toilets at picnic areas and camping zones.

22. Mount Roland could leverage off Cradle Mountain’s image and global status,

but should be marketed as an authentic natural alternative, not a replica, of

Cradle Mountain.

23. Visitors are not aware of what is in Kentish until they get here, and by then it’s

too late because they have already made accommodation bookings and

planned their itineraries and only have an hour or two to see Kentish. This

does not include self‐accommodating visitors, who are on a more relaxed

schedule and would stay longer if they feel welcome in the district. Potentially

they will spend more in the short term, and may become big investors and

residents in the area, adding to opportunities for economic revitalisation.

Page | 74

APPENDIX M: ADVENTURE TOURISM HUB

Current situation

• Tasmania traditionally attracts tourists seeking a wilderness, history or culinary‐based

experience Tourism Tasmania Visitor Motivations Survey, March 2010, Tourism Tasmania

Visitor Survey, 2010).

• Tasmania has not catered well for the younger traveller in terms of volume or type of

experiences, (Governance Stakeholder Survey, pers. comm. 2011) yet this is a potentially

large market segment.

• Kentish is in the rare position of having all the natural features required for such an

industry in very close proximity to each other (30 minutes maximum) and to a service

town (Sheffield) (Mount Roland asset map, 2011).

• Kentish has the service structure and ability to support such an industry (Mount Roland

asset map, 2011).

• A pre‐feasibility discussion paper, conducted by the Kentish Council in 2009, highlighted

the advantages of Kentish as a hub for adventure tourism, and some potential sites for

specific adventure activities.

• There is increasing discussion within the Tasmanian tourism, leisure and recreational

communities about developing an adventure tourism industry in Tasmania. Kentish is

well positioned to act early and establish its brand as Tasmania’s Wilderness Playground

ahead of other regions.

Some adventure activities are already conducted on and around Mount Roland. They include:

• Abseiling and rock climbing

• Canyoning in the Dove River valley

• Horse riding experiences at Kimberley and Beulah

Page | 75

• White water rafting, kayaking and canoeing at the Mersey White Water Course and on

the Forth River

• Caving club experiences in the Mole Creek Karst area. Commercialisation of this, or

connection with the existing Parks and Wildlife Service guided tours may be feasible

Proposal:

The activities enable Kentish’s wilderness features to be experienced in a fun‐filled,

adventurous way.

Potential activities on Mount Roland, Van Dyke and/or Claude:

Abseiling

Rock climbing

Hang gliding

Tree top walk

Flying fox

Mountain biking

Luge

Bungee jumping

Potential activities around Mount Roland:

4WD safaris

Wilderness

Walking

Horse riding

Caving

White water rafting

Kayaking

Canyoning

Mountain biking

Hot air ballooning

High Country discovery trail

Jet Boat (Mersey atRailton or Kimberley)

Cycling

Sky diving

Swings

Page | 76

Hub at Gowrie Park:

The adventure tourism industry could be serviced from Sheffield, given the town’s close

proximity to Mount Roland, but might otherwise be serviced from a hub at Gowrie Park.

This would likely spawn a small cluster of service providers around it, creating a true

tourism hub. Secondary enterprises likely to emerge are accommodation, basic service

provision, general essentials, internet access and café or restaurant.

Gowrie Park is a good place for a hub as it is already serviced by public transport

operating between Sheffield and Cradle Mountain, has buildings appropriate to be used

for accommodation, restaurants and shops, and has established services including

power, roads, water supply and a water treatment plant.

Potential features:

Abseiling/canyoning/canyon swings/caving:

This takes advantage of the spectacular uplifts of Mount Roland, and the canyons around

it, in an adventurous way that appeals to the demographic aged under 35 (and plenty of

others older than 35).

Water sports:

The area within 30 minutes of Mount Roland features white water and black water

experiences. It is rare for this diversity to be offered in close proximity to a town in

Tasmania.

Horse riding:

The Mount Roland‐Cradle trail would follow in the footsteps of early pioneers, providing

not just a highland alpine experience but drawing on history of the mountain cattlemen,

trappers, timber cutters, and explorers, passing authentic historic sites such as the

Hellyer Trail and using tracks cut by the pioneers. It would build on the shorter treks

already offered in Kentish.

Page | 77

Sky diving/hang gliding/paragliding:

Potential launching points have been identified by an industry expert on the Telstra

access road on Mount Claude, or from the Staverton plateau, which would start a

spectacular flight over woodland with potential landing sites on farmland by Claude

Road, subject to landholder approval, and which would provide stunning views of the

northern coastline of Tasmania, the Kentish plains, and south over the Central Highlands.

Two former airstrips have been identified, one next to Claude Rd near the Browns Hill Rd

junction, and another near the Dasher River at the foot of Mount Roland. These might be

used for plane take‐offs and landing, subject to landholder approval, aviation law, and

community support. However, consideration must be given to the noise created by a

light plane, though commercial sky diving operations currently operate in rural areas at

Deloraine, Swansea and Wynyard.

Luge/flying fox:

An attraction suitable for younger adventure seekers, older adventure seekers and those a

little less brave but still seeking an experience that would add an edge to being in the

wilderness. Ideally suited to the foothills of Mount Van Dyke or Mount Claude, within walking

distance of the Gowrie Park hub.

Governance:

Kentish Council roles:

• Planning laws

• Signs and roads

• Building by‐laws

• Land use policy

Parks and Wildlife Service roles:

• Operations on PWS land on and around Mount Roland must conform with the

Reserves Activities Assessment (2010) and the Tasmanian Reserve Management

Code of Practice (2003);

Page | 78

• Operators on Mount Roland or other Parks & Wildlife land would enter a lease or

licence arrangement with Parks & Wildlife;

• Visitor risk and public liability on Parks & Wildlife‐managed land would be the

responsibility of the operator;

• Parks may assist with signage;

• Mount Roland Fire Management Plan.

Forestry Tasmania roles:

• Forestry Tasmania would enter a land lease arrangement with operators on land it

manages;

• Forestry Tasmania would require an environmental study, an aboriginal heritage

study and potentially a water study (where relevant);

• It would also assess proposals on its land against issues of:

o Permanency

o Purpose of land already

o Current use (harvesting, water storage etc)

o Other occupants and neighbouring users (e.g. private landholders, also motorbikes

often not compatible with other activities)

o Presence of and impact on flora, fauna, landscape, archaeology, soil and water

Hydro Tasmania roles:

• Hydro Tasmania manages the Mersey and Forth river systems;

• It would issue a permit to operators on Hydro‐managed water courses;

• Infrastructure on Hydro land or abutting Hydro‐managed water courses must satisfy

Hydro Tasmania’s Environmental Management System;

• Hydro would consider safety and fire management issues associated with limited

access points to rivers and waterways.

State and federal government roles:

• Adventure tourism activities must meet state and federal environmental, water

quality and heritage guidelines outlined in Appendix C.

Page | 79

Investment and resources required:

Cradle Coast Authority and Kentish Council should play a pivotal role in facilitating

private operators by assisting with:

• start‐up issues and bureaucratic engagement

• grants

• insurance

• meeting statutory and legal obligations

• connection between operators to develop an efficient, mutually beneficial system

relating to marketing, administration and other common issues

Some improved access roads may be required.

Funding options:

• The establishment of an adventure tourism industry would largely be funded by

private enterprise;

• Infrastructure, such as roads and signage, would have to be considered on an

individual needs basis once specific proposals are put forward. However, it is clear

that some road maintenance and signage would be required.

Some potential funding avenues:

• Tourism Tasmania:

o Innovation and Investment Fund for business in North‐West and Northern

Tasmania (more than $50,000)

o Regional Assistance Program (less than $50,000)

o Tqual Grant Scheme

• Tasmanian Community Fund

• Foundation for Rural and Regional Renewal

• Sport and Recreation Tasmania Major and Minor Grants programs could be tapped

to host events and to provide infrastructure for events, though these would not be

applicable to normal commercial adventure activities

Page | 80

• Australian Government start‐up business grants, regional and rural grants,

employment grants, education and training grants.

Page | 81

APPENDIX N: RECREATIONAL CAMPING

Current situation

Camping has been a traditional recreational pursuit of Tasmanians for generations, as

families and couples take advantage of secluded, or communal camping spots on

coastlines and in the hinterland around the island. For many, it has developed into a

cultural activity as well as a social one, with frequent returns to the one camping site, for

example, the camp grounds on the eastern and western sides of Lake Barrington for local

water sports enthusiasts. These families tend to set up camp long term over the summer

months until Easter and will spend money in the towns nearest to their favourite

camping spot on food and refreshments, fuel, provisions, entertainment and occasional

restaurant meals.

Where a generation ago this community largely comprised locals with a caravan or tent,

an influx of mostly interstate visitors with self‐contained camping vehicles has

transformed what was once an influx each school holiday period into a tourism market

that peaks for about six months of each year.

Self Accommodating Visitors (SAVs) coming to North West Tasmania are likely to:

• Be a newly retired baby boomer (born 1943 – 1964), with high level professional or

technical specialist skills.

• Own their fully self‐contained motor‐home or caravan.

• Travel as a couple, with one or both partners on repeat visits, and to come from

Queensland.

• Spend 19 days in the North‐West, representing 30% of the total time of nine weeks

in Tasmania.

• Spend $1261 return fare and travel via the Spirit of Tasmania

• Spend $70‐75 per day on food, fuel, restaurants, souvenirs, clothing attractions,

National Park entrance fees, camp site fees.

Page | 82

• Participate in short scenic walks, water‐based activities such as kayaking and fishing,

bird watching, photography, and enjoy scenic drives, exploring small towns and

historic and cultural places of interest (Fallon and Clutterbuck, 2011).

In addition, they are likely to be repeat visitors (50%) and 10% may have sold their

principal place of residence and are likely to be seeking relocation in Tasmania. Although

the Real Estate Institute of Tasmania’s (REIT) March 2011 Quarterly Property report

indicated that the volume of house sales in Tasmania had dropped, the purchases by

interstate buyers had increased by 23%.(The Advocate 5 May 2011:6).

Proposal:

• O’Neills Creek campsite, that has operated for several decades, is rated as an

excellent facility by SAVs. It is located near a short rainforest and creek side walk and

is very picturesque with views of Mount Roland, as well as being close to the Mount

Roland walking tracks. It has a well maintained toilet facility, used also by people on

tour buses, other passing traffic, pony club and rodeo attendees. There are campfire

sites, picnic tables with benches and a shelter shed. Whilst campers in tents and

slide‐on camper outfits may also request the provision of showers, additional

expenditure by Council at O’Neills Creek is unnecessary. These and other facilities

could be accessed for a fee at the nearby Gowrie Park Wilderness Caravan Park. Like

the example of Rocky Cape Tavern that has both fee paying and free sites for fully‐

self‐contained recreational vehicles, Gowrie Park could capture some revenue from

this market. This could be further enhanced by hosting the History and Cultural

Heritage Interpretation Centre nearby, or in the existing restaurant building (for

sale).

• Alternatively, a “camp host’’ system might be employed, whereby in exchange for

extended camping, a visitor volunteers to manage the camp site for a given period

(say, maximum 2 weeks), monitoring such issues as use of facilities, noise and care

for the local environment and providing regular reports to Council.

Page | 83

• Further camp sites could be developed in the space once occupied by the former

Hydro village at Gowrie Park. Currently these are in poor states of repair and

overgrown. The ghost town appearance is not attractive for SAVs, who often choose

to stay at the more picturesque O’Neill’s Creek rather than Gowrie Park, or close to

town next to the Sheffield recreation oval. The other camp sites at Kentish are not

very attractive, large or accessible for SAVs, who do not in any case want to be

camped near noisy water sports activities.

• Use Gowrie Park – O’Neill’s Creek as the hub for SAVs of all types, but also expand

and diversify the range of camp sites to develop a national reputation for the

municipality as a SAV friendly community.

Potential features:

A diversity of camping spots, from larger communal “gathering places’’ such as the

existing O’Neill’s Creek and Sheffield Recreation Ground sites to smaller places

accommodating only one visitor at a time. The sites should also include a diversity of

locations, including riverside, bushland, and more open areas.

Investment/infrastructure:

• Outdoor furniture picnic tables and benches, communal shelters, dump station,

barbecues and accessibility to power, toilet, showers and laundry facilities if

required.

• An increased number of attractive and well maintained camping spots, accessible for

self‐contained vehicles and family‐sized tents.

• The development of the Historical and Cultural Interpretation Centre with

associated coffee shop/restaurant and other services, would provide a central

attraction at Gowrie Park Village.

• Targeted promotion on seniors and “grey nomad’’ websites, such as

http://www.yourlifechoices.com.au/; www.greynomad.com.au and Campervan and

Page | 84

Motorhome Club of Australia (CMCA) www.cmca.com.au that has over 60,000

members and 95 chapters throughout Australia and is a powerful lobby for the

expanding numbers of baby‐boomers and pre‐baby‐boomers taking to the roads.

• Promote Gowrie Park – O’Neill’s Creek as the hub for self‐accommodating visitors,

with other key attractions within easy one hour accessibility, for example, Cradle

Mountain, Mole Creek caves, Lake Barrington Reserve, Sheffield, Wilmot, Railton,

Devonport, Leven Canyon, Dial Range, the coast, Narawntapu National Park, Walls

of Jerusalem, Gunns Plains, spectacular Mersey River forests.

Governance: • Kentish Council planning and land use by‐laws

• State and federal government water quality laws (where applicable)

• Fire management assessment

• Potential state government policy in wake of Office of the Economic Regulator

decision on free‐camping sites (May, 2011).

Page | 85

APPENDIX O: WORLD‐CLASS MOUNTAIN BIKE AND CYCLING PARK

Current situation:

The Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan was developed in 2010 in response to the dramatic

increase in popularity of the activity locally, nationally and internationally (Tourism

Tasmania Visitor Survey, 2010). Demand for mountain bike trails significantly exceeds

supply (Tasmanian Mountain Bike Plan, 2010).

The diverse and spectacular terrain of the Mount Roland precinct, the district’s

reputation as a nature‐based attraction and the emerging theme as ``Tasmania’s

Wilderness Playground’’ offer a unique opportunity for the district to establish a

wilderness cycling park that will bring significant economic benefit and publicity to

Kentish.

The Tasmanian Mountain Bike Strategy found:

• there were more mountain bike facilities in the south of the state than the north,

and least of all in the North‐West;

• Facilities tend to be limited to vehicular tracks and fire breaks with few

opportunities for the more popular single use tracks;

• There were few facilities close to population centres;

• There were few facilities connected to more expansive tracks;

• Few professionally designed or purpose‐built tracks;

• Most trails are on private land and are only open during events.

The Tasmanian Mountain Bike Strategy adopted as its vision:

Tasmania will provide a world‐class, diverse range of outstanding mountain bike

riding experiences showcasing Tasmania’s natural environment to entice local,

national and international riders, where the network of trails and facilities are

managed on a sustainable basis with the support of land managers and riders.

Page | 86

The Trails Tasmania Strategy (2008) also investigated mountain bike trails.

It found:

• There was an under supply of suitable trails to cater for the growth occurring in the

different mountain biking disciplines;

• Pressure will continue for the development of trails in natural areas that cater for

the `èxtreme’’ or niche use relating to mountain biking.

Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Service’s current policy, as outlined in the Tasmanian

Reserve Management Code of Practice (2003:56) is to provide a range of recreational

opportunities across a regional network of reserves. However, usage of almost every

other reserve in the area is limited to bushwalking.

Forestry Tasmania is supportive of mountain biking as a recreational pursuit in its forests

and this development would add to Forestry’s `Àdventure Forests’’ network and

marketing strategy (Governance Stakeholder Survey, 2011).

Forestry is keen to support loops off Tasmania Trail (goes through Beulah, at foot of

Mount Roland). It is particularly enthusiastic and supportive of a loop track around Mount

Roland (Governance Stakeholder Survey, 2011).

Sport and Recreation Tasmania is very supportive of development of the Tasmania Trail,

which would form part of this development (Governance Stakeholder Survey, 2011).

``Kentish has good diversity of experience for mountain bikes – terrain, other

attractions …’’ (pers. comm. Luke Chiu, mountain bike strategy co‐ordinator,

Tasmanian Department of Sport and Recreation, 2011).

``The assessment of supply indicates the desirability to provide more central social

recreation opportunities in open space, close to where people live, and to diversify

the experiences available in open space.’’ (Cradle Coast Open Space Plan Vol.1, Sport

and Recreation Tasmania, 2009:12).

Page | 87

``The significant conservation areas will continue to be protected and enhanced to

encourage native fauna and flora to flourish. They will be managed to provide

additional recreational value whilst enhancing biodiversity, the perception of local

environmental quality, and protecting our rich cultural heritage.’’ (Cradle Coast Open

Space Plan Vol.1, Sport and Recreation Tasmania, 2009:13).

Proposal:

The mountain biking park is intended to be of a standard that would attract international

and national mountain biking competitions, and the exposure in niche industry

publications that comes with that.

Features include:

A diversity of riding experiences, including:

• a compact network of 2‐3km loop tracks for beginners, families and intermediate

riders, which is the hub of the attraction. These must feature a variation of terrain

and length;

• Advanced loop tracks of up to 15km with technical elements;

• Downhill course;

• 4‐cross course;

• Extended cross country experiences;

• Loop track around Sensation Gorge including the southern edge of the Mount

Roland uplift;

• Link route from Sensation Gorge track to proposed Mount Roland to Cradle track

(this would be world‐famous);

• Route to Old Lorinna Rd for mountain bike and equestrian experiences;

• Boardwalks and elevated tracks if required for sensitive areas;

• Interpretation signage (historical, flora, fauna, other notable features), particularly

on the family‐focused tracks;

Page | 88

• Link to the Tasmania Trail and promoted (but not physical) link to the existing

Wolfram Track ride, which is well known in the sector and popular. In this way,

enthusiasts could have mullti‐day experiences, extending their stay in Kentish;

• Such a cluster of short and long, to provide a mecca of unprecedented diversity and

experience.

How to make it stand‐out:

• Be highly diverse and compact, providing a range of landscapes and terrains;

• Picturesque – pictures of people on ridgelines, or with mountaintop views,

waterfalls, creeks and forest are what draw national and international visitors;

• Paths meandering through ferns, trees and water;

• Points from where you can see great distances;

• Unique elements – like the rope bridge at Montezuma;

• Create a sense the user is isolated and in the midst of the wilderness;

• Create a sense the user has been somewhere rare;

• Host a unique annual event – like the mountain biking version of the Triple Top

Mountain Run.

The market:

• There are similarities between what attracts bushwalkers and what attracts

mountain bikers;

• Enthusiasts regularly travel statewide for a mountain biking experience;

• Mountain bikers are used to travelling to get to venues;

• Launceston has third biggest club (in terms of participation) in Australia – regularly

100 or more at Wednesday twilight ride;

• If the trail is worthwhile, and the event is good, they will come from all over

Tasmania and many from mainland.

Page | 89

The experience of others:

Canberra: A 24‐hour mountain biking event, after only three years, now has to ballot

entries because nominations have now surpassed 2000‐3000.

Glenorchy: Has now hosted the national titles four years in a row.

Whistler, Canada: Now has more mountain bikers visits in summer than skiers in winter.

Overnight stays during the non‐winter months at Whistler, British Columbia, Canada,

after the development of a mountain bike trail network, increased 90% (Mountain Bike

Tourism, Whistler, 2009).

Forest, Victoria: Was a forestry area before a logging moratorium was set. At that point

Forest comprised a pub, a service station and scattered houses. It now has a pub, a

service station and a bike shop, with B&Bs popping up everywhere for mountain bikers

swamping the area every weekend (Cradle Coast Mountain Biking Club, pers. comm.

2011).

Scottsdale, Tasmania: The inaugural Race of the Blue Dragon event at Blue Tier was a

great success and organisers are expecting a doubling of entries this year (Cradle Coast

Mountain Biking Club, pers. comm. 2011).

Rotorua NZ: Estimated mountain bike expenditure in 2005 $1.94m; in 2007 $2.56m

Had 85,000 visitation in 2007 aqnd 105,000 in 2009, with a 15% increase in expenditure.

Of the visitors, 48.7% were from New Zealand, 2.9% were international visitors, and the

remainder were ``local’’ (Recreational Use and Economic Impact of Whakarewarewa

Forest, 2010).

Experience in Scotland, British Columbia and Rotorua New Zealand show that mountain

bikers also tend to be walkers, fishers, skiers, history/heritage tourists and campers and

tend to sight‐see in other parts of a region while visiting a mountain bike venue.

Page | 90

Investment and resources required:

Minimal built infrastructure required:

• A shelter

• Car park

• Picnic tables

• Toilet

• Signage that maps the tracks

• Barbecues (later stages)

• Access to power useful but not essential as events can provide their own generator.

The national titles have been run at the Glenorchy track for four years without

power or running water: They brought in generators and portaloos.

• Camping could be directed to existing facilities at Gowrie Park.

This facility will cost the Kentish council virtually nothing. The Cradle Coast Mountain

Biking Club is prepared to develop the early stages of the facility and the only provisions

from council are likely to be minor, such as garbage bins (Cradle Coast Mountain Biking

Club, pers. comm., 2011).

There are multiple federal government grant schemes that the club intends to apply

through, that will fund facility development, particularly in the more advanced stages

involving the course and provisions required for competition.

Associated opportunities:

Wildside‐type events: 400 competitors but almost every competitor brings their family –

then there’s almost as many officials as competitors.

Mark Webber Challenge: This and other multi‐sport events would use this sort of facility,

bringing with them national and international exposure.

National multi‐sport events: The cycling park, connected with the rivers and mountains

of Kentish, would be an ideal venue for national competitions.

Page | 91

Cable car: If this idea was progressed, bike hooks could be attached to the pods to tow

bikes to the top, from where a downhill course could begin. This would be a world‐

famous attraction (CCMBC, pers. comm., 2011).

Regulation and considerations:

• Forestry would require a State Forest Activity Plan, which would assess:

o Environmental impact

o Permanency

o Purpose of land already

o Current use (harvesting, water storage etc)

o Other occupants and neighbouring users (e.g. private landholders, also motorbikes

often not compatible with other activities)

o Flora/fauna/landscape/archaeology/soil/water

• If any section was developed on the Mount Roland State Reserve, threatened

species and aboriginal cultural heritage studies would be required and a Tasmanian

Parks and Wildlife Service Reserve Activity Assessment would be required.

• Tracks in these areas will be subject to the National Parks and Reserves

Management Act (2002), particularly relating to the preservation of flora, fauna,

geodiversity and cultural values.

• Fire management assessment

• Development would be subject to the provisions of a mining lease held over parts of

Mount Roland.

• The Kentish Council’s role would be limited to local governance, including building

and planning laws.

• All trails and facilities development must be approved by getting an EPBC permit.

Page | 92

• State environmental legislation relating to threatened species, the Environmental

Management Act and water quality policies.

• There are known and recorded aboriginal heritage sites in the area, particularly in

the Gog Range. An aboriginal heritage study would be required before cycling paths

could be established.

Funding options:

• The Tasmanian Government committed more than $4 million in the 2008‐09 budget

to tracks, trails and cycle paths in Tasmania;

• Federal funding: The Launceston club was granted $300,000 for track maintenance

in 2009;

• Forestry Tasmania is happy to be part of funding applications, to support

applications and to provide in‐kind support;

• Trails & Bikeways Program grants for projects consistent with the Trails Tasmania

Strategy, for up to half the value of the project;

• Sport and Recreation Tasmania helps clubs and organisations improve capability,

facilities, settings and build capacity through its Major and Minor Grants Programs;

• SRT Minor Grants program provides between $500 and $10,000 for clubs,

associations, local government and not‐for‐profit providers of sport and recreation.

These grants are for equipment, facility development, research studies, participation

projects and development programs. Applicants must provide at least matching

funding;

• The SRT major Grants Program is for grants of between $15,000 and $80,000 for

clubs, associations, local government and not‐for‐profit providers of sport and

recreation. They are for major equipment purchases, major facility development,

Page | 93

participation projects and other major development projects. Applicants must

contribute at least half the project funding;

• State Grants Program: Grants of up to $50,000 to improve sport and recreation

opportunities;

• National Sports Championship Program: Grants of up to $3000 to host national

championships;

• The International Mountain Biking Association offers several grant programs. These

can be viewed at its website: www.imba.com;

• Many corporate firms in the cycling industry offer grants to mountain biking clubs,

such as development funds, sponsorship, in‐kind support. An example of this is

Specialised Dealer Grants, which provide, among other things, grants for ``Kids on

Bikes’’ and ``Wellness on Bikes’’;

• The not‐for‐profit Bikes Belong Coalition provides grants to ``get more people on

bikes, more often’’

6‐year plan:

Year 1:

• Club members build basic trails (3‐year plan) – mostly short trails

• Focus is on locals, establishing a name & trail

• Build carpark

• Basic signage

• Build family‐based picnic areas

• Start establishing brand/marketing

• Develop website

Page | 94

Year 2:

• Trails construction

• Construction of downhill track

• Host ``Mount Roland Mountain Bike Festival’’ for competitive mountain bikers – people stay for the weekend

• Build in the family focus: BBQs, toilets, open areas, picnic facilities, easy trails around picnic areas for little riders

• Improved signage

• Internet marketing

• Create a following on twitter and social networks

• Attract naming rights corporate sponsor for facility

Year 3:

• More trails construction

• Construction of four‐cross course

• Multiple events hosted, including round of state series

• Improved signage/interpretative signage

• Invite Tasmanian, interstate sports/recreation/travel journalists to view emerging world‐class facility with view to subsequent promotion

Year 4:

• Professionally designed track development

• Include trials/dirt jumps course

• Establishment of unique Mount Roland national event

• Invite specialist mountain bike & cycling industry journalists/publications to view new world‐class facility with eye to subsequent promotion

• Develop cycling track connections between the facility and Sheffield, Railton, Gowrie Park and nearby secondary roads (to develop loop cycling network)

Year 5:

• Bid to host national titles

• Unique Mount Roland event to have national significance

Year 6: • Bid to host UCI World Cup round

Page | 95

APPENDIX P: WALKING TRACKS

Summary of proposals:

1. New route to Mount Roland summit

2. Interpretative walk and lookout on Kings Rd Face Track

3. The Badgers

4. Establishment of Roland‐Cradle trail

5. Support and help build a guided walk industry

6. Adding value to walking tracks

Current situation:

The Kentish municipality, with Mount Roland as its central feature, is well placed due to

its natural and built assets, to be developed as a hub for wilderness experiences such as

bushwalking.

A series of well‐promoted walks, most of which are less than two hours’ duration but

also featuring some longer, iconic walks, would contribute to developing the

municipality as ``Tasmania’s Wilderness Playground’’ for intrastate, interstate and

international visitors.

While Mount Roland is a spectacular visual centrepiece for this idea, walking options on

the uplift are too limited to attract significant visitor numbers by itself. The walk to the

summit is too long and arduous for all but fit, regular walkers (Kentish Tourism

Stakeholders Survey, 2011; Sheffield Visitor Information Centre staff interviews, pers.

comm, 2011). There are no walking experiences on Mount Roland to suit irregular

walkers, who are likely to prefer walks of less than two hours (Site Analysis, 2011).

Mount Roland’s role in this strategy is as the site for three iconic attractions – the

summit walk, a trail to Cradle Mountain and an interpretative walk on the existing Face

Track that culminates in a spectacular look‐out at the tree line.

Page | 96

These would form the centre of a well‐promoted network of short walks that already

exist across the municipality, to any of the seven waterfalls in the district, plus other

attractions such as Devil’s Gullet, The Badgers, Henry Somerset Orchid Reserve, Stoodley

Forest Walk, Sykes Sanctuary, Dooley’s Track, Bell Mountain and the Tasmania Trail.

Mount Roland is well‐placed to attract significant visitation for bushwalks by virtue of

the fact it is on the main corridor to Cradle Mountain. As a result, the kind of tourist

interested in a bushwalking or wilderness experience, is already driving past. The

majority of visitors to Cradle Mountain are seeking bushwalks and nature experiences,

though most are not prepared for the arduous terrain and extreme conditions often

encountered at Cradle Mountain and may prefer to have their natural walking

experience on a shorter walk in the Kentish district instead.

Mount Roland can build off the market from nearby Cradle Mt as:

• Mount Roland is more accessible than Cradle Mt for bushwalking.

• Mount Roland is free to enter, Cradle Mt is not.

But if Mount Roland is to play a role in the stated ambition to draw more visitors to

Kentish, then an easier way must be found to experience it than the six‐hour return walk

to its summit from O’Neills Rd.

This can only be done either by:

• Finding a shorter or alternative route to the summit

• Finding ways of enjoying the mountain other than climbing to its summit

• Erecting provisions for overnight accommodation at the summit to break up a

seven‐hour journey over two days

Alternative walking routes exist:

• The ``Front Track’’ from Kings Rd up the northern face is a shorter route to the

summit (about 4.5 hours return) but its relentless steepness on the climb is a

disincentive to many occasional walkers.

Page | 97

• The track from Olivers Rd across the summits of mounts Claude and Van Dyke to the

summit of Mount Roland is even longer than the seven‐hour return walk

terminating at O’Neill’s Rd.

The Tasmanian Trails Strategy:

It is estimated almost $4m is invested each year in the construction and maintenance of

trails in Tasmania. This comprises government agencies $2m and local councils $1.8m

(Sport and Recreation Trails Tasmania Strategy, 2007).

While allocations vary year to year, it was estimated five of the six city councils

(excluding Hobart City Council) spent about $100,000 a year on recreational trails, while

the smaller councils allocated an average $25,000 a year.

Community consultation, as part of the Trails Tasmania Strategy, noted the following

needs:

• to provide improved access to and information about existing trails, especially for

non‐walking trail users and people with disabilities

• to maintain access (to trials), particularly those which cross private land

• to increase the number of trails in rural areas

As part of the consultation, the community was asked to nominate new trails and 61

ideas were nominated, showing the large public interest in trails for walking and non‐

walking users (Trals Tasmania Strategy, 2007).

The strategy also found:

• The increased need for recreation trails generally

• Trails have been a good means of attracting visitors (e.g. the success of Tasmania’s

60 Great Short Walks, rail trails in Victoria and coastal trails in Sydney)

• Need to provide for diverse trail experiences

Page | 98

The Trails Tasmania Strategy produced seven primary criteria (must be met) and three

secondary criteria (ideal if met) for a trail to be supported.

The Mount Roland‐Cradle Trail, new Mount Roland summit trail, the Kings Rd Face Track

look‐out proposal and Badgers track have been selected because they meet all 7 primary

criteria, and 1 secondary criteria (the other 2 secondary criteria were not applicable).

Proposals in detail:

This is a series of alternative ways of experiencing Mount Roland by bushwalking, with a

focus on providing a diversity of experience for a broad range of people with different

needs in terms of access and in relation to fitness and walking ability.

1. New path to summit of Mount Roland

Mount Roland will only be a key asset in attracting more people to Kentish if a way is

found to get more people to the top. Currently, the 6‐7 hour O’Neill’s Creek Track, and

the 4.5 hour Kings Rd Front Track, are considered too arduous by most tourists, who are

usually only occasional walkers.

Therefore, either an easier path, a shorter path, a road, or mechanical means are

required to get occasional walkers to the top. The options of road or mechanical means

are dealt with elsewhere in this report.

Given significant opposition in the Kentish community to a road or mechanical means,

and the lack of a proponent for a cable car, the most viable solution may be to develop a

shorter walking route to the summit.

A new path, which is the shortest possible route to the summit, has been proposed from

Rysavy Rd, up a gap beside Rysavy Ridge, in the north‐west corner of the uplift.

It is estimated this would be about a 2.5‐3 hour return journey.

Page | 99

Private landholder Steven Brown, who owns the property between the end of Rysavy Rd

and the Mount Roland Conservation Area, is agreeable to a track starting from his

property and an access road and car park area constructed to service the track. Mr

Brown has traversed the proposed route many times and says it is suitable as a route

and would require minimal construction of artificial track surface. A site analysis of the

proposed route would be required by Parks & Wildlife, with Mr Brown, before a final

route could be settled.

Parks & Wildlife would require an easement on the private‐held land, or a lease

arrangement, to consider this option. Mr Brown is agreeable to such an arrangement.

It would also require a fire management assessment, against the Roland Fire

Management Area Fire Protection Plan (2008) and conform to other PWS reserve

management frameworks (see Appendix C).

A formal assessment of rare and threatened species would also be required, as would an

aboriginal heritage assessment (see Appendix C).

Specific infrastructure required:

The amount of track infrastructure is reliant on the precise route chosen and track

standard desired. If this is to be the promoted as the primary route to the summit of

Mount Roland, it would perhaps need to be of T2 or T3 standard on the Parks & Wildlife

Service track standard classification. Such standards would mean the most likely routes

would require only minimal artificial track surface such as boardwalks, though no safety

mechanisms such as bridges, rails or guide wires.

Other infrastructure:

• Natural step construction on a steep shale section near Rysavy Ridge, on the face of

Mount Roland.

• Directional signage at the junction of Claude Rd and Rysavy Rd.

• Directional signage at the start of the track, at the terminus of Rysavy Rd.

Page | 100

• Potentially some directional signage on the Mount Roland plateau.

Source: Adapted from Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania

2. Interpretative walk and lookout on Kings Rd track

Mount Roland does not currently cater for tourists if they don’t have all day. Many are

seeking walks of less than two hours but the mountain’s steep slopes and the distance of

the summit from roads limits the opportunities for development of such walks.

The existing Kings Rd track, which traverses the northern face to the summit, provides

one of the few opportunities to construct a walking wilderness experience of less than

two hours.

While the existing track extends all the way to the summit (about 4.5 hours return) it

affords the opportunity for walkers to experience the natural bush setting and a

spectacular view of the northern Tasmanian coastline and coastal plains from a lookout

Page | 101

point at the tree line about one hour’s walk from vehicular access. This view was

described by local resident Bruce French as `èvery bit as good as the view from the

top’’. It is a spectacular view from Ben Lomond in the east, across the entire northern

Tasmanian coastline as far as Table Cape in the west, and including the coastal

hinterland from Westbury to Penguin.

Interpretative signage could be placed at intervals on the track to break up the journey,

culminating in a spectacular view from an elevated lookout approximately on the tree

line.

This would provide those visitors who do not wish to walk for more than two hours, with

a natural experience, a spectacular view of almost the entire northern coast of Tasmania

and interpretation of local flaura, fauna and geomorphology.

This track – with its spectacular view, dramatic lookout and relatively short duration –

would also attract northern Tasmanian families, who may then spend the rest of the day

viewing other attractions in the Kentish municipality.

Infrastructure, regulation and management:

• This track currently starts on private land. While the landholder is keen to maintain

this arrangement, Parks & Wildlife would require a lease agreement, or alternative

starting point, before contributing funds and resources to this concept.

• The existing track is maintained and in adequate condition. However, consideration

must be given to Parks & Wildlife’s track classification system, given interpretative

signage may bring with it an expectation of an improved standard of track surface.

• Interpretative signage detailing flora and fauna seen on the trail, indigenous cultural

practices, geomorphological features (many) and, at the look‐out at the tree line,

interpretation showing the main visible geographical and population features as well

Page | 102

as an interpretation of the dramatic geomorphological processes that have created

the identifiable landscapes.

3. The Badgers

Possibly the best view of Mount Roland in all of the Kentish municipality is afforded from

Kimberleys Lookout at the south end of The Badgers Range, 4km north of Sheffield.

The Badgers provides a long‐established, adequately maintained easy walking track to

the top of a range that affords a spectacular 360 degree view of the entire Kentish

municipality and beyond, with Mount Roland front and centre. As The Badgers walk is

only about 90‐120 minutes, and of a low degree of difficulty, it falls within the less‐than‐

two‐hours time preferred by many non‐regular walkers who make up the majority of

visitors to Kentish, and potential visitors to Kentish. This existing track therefore provides

occasional walkers an opportunity to savour Mount Roland and the picturesque Kentish

municipality without having to endure the seven‐hour climb to the summit of Mount

Roland.

Infrastructure required:

As it is an established track, The Badgers would only require:

• a bigger sign at the junction of Nook Rd and the gravel track access road (next to the

Sheffield Golf Course);

• a directional sign approximately 50 metres along its path due to a confusing branch

in the track;

• a small platform at its summit to enable more than one person to admire the view

at a time.

Page | 103

4. Establishment of Mount Roland to Cradle Mountain walking and horse‐riding route:

This proposal could create an iconic Tasmanian bushwalk starting in Kentish, at virtually

no expense to the council or other stakeholders.

A multi‐use route is proposed from Gowrie Park, over the saddle between Mount Roland

and Mount Van Dyke, via the Old Lorinna Rd to Lemonthyme, via the Dove River Valley,

to the Cradle Mountain airstrip on the boundary of the Cradle Mountain‐Lake St Clair

World Heritage Area.

It is proposed this route could be used by walkers and horse riders and, except for the

starting point on Parks & Wildlife managed land at Mount Van Dyke, would traverse the

Old Lorinna Rd and the Dove River Forest Reserve, managed by Forestry Tasmania.

This track would establish Mount Roland as the start of the Tasmanian highland

mountain experience, would create a track of `ìconic’’ status beginning at Mount Roland

and would help link Mount Roland to the world‐class wilderness values associated with

Cradle Mountain.

It would take in the spectacular Lemonthyme Valley, vistas of Lake Cethana, the Bridle

Veil and Champagne Falls, the chasm of the Dove River valley and alpine areas near

Middlesex Plains and Daisy Dell, and unique views of Cradle Mountain, the Western

Tiers, Sensation Gorge and the Central Highlands.

The fact the track would almost entirely follow trails cut by pioneers, timber cutters,

trappers and mountain cattlemen would lend authenticity and a historic educational

experience to the trail and the journey.


• Track markers

• A sign at each end of the walk

• A directional sign at the Olivers Rd crossing

• A directional sign at the end of Lorinna Rd

Page | 104

• A directional sign at the Lemonthyme power station

• A log river crossing for walkers on the Campbell, Forth and Dove rivers

It is envisaged the trail would mostly follow existing tracks, cut by early pioneers and

loggers, notably F.H. Haynes. These tracks still exist and in many areas are navigable,

although trees have fallen across the path in some areas and other parts have become

overgrown. There are several Kentish residents who know where these tracks are and

have expressed a willingness to help rediscover the tracks. Some variation from the

original tracks may be required in the Dove River valley, particularly to take advantage of

the best views of the waterfalls, and some track cutting would be required in areas

overgrown by dense foliage.

It is proposed this trail initially only be of ``Route’’ standard under Parks & Wildlife

Service track classification system, which would require only track markings. No camping

provisions or track infrastructure need be developed, except route markers.

Should this walk prove suitably popular, it could at a later date be upgraded in track

standard and have features built at intervals, such as interpretation of the many

significant geological, cultural and historic sites that dot its course.

An Aboriginal heritage study would be required as aboriginal habitation dating back

34,000 (among the oldest in Tasmania) has been documented in this region.

Environmental assessment would also be required, in line with Forestry Tasmania policy.

Page | 105

5. Support and help build a guided walk industry:

Private individual of groups of bushwalkers tend not to spend large sums in adjacent

towns before embarking on bushwalks. They tend to already come well‐equipped and

provisioned for the walk and therefore do not contribute significant spending in the local

economy.

The greatest economic benefit to Kentish from bushwalking would come through

commercial guided walking tours, which are accommodated in the local community, eat

in the local community and due to the fact theirs is a multiple‐day stay, purchase their

provisions in the local community.

Examples of commercial guided walk operations are Hedonistic Hiking, based in Victoria,

Australian Walking Tours and Auswalk.

Page | 106

While the market and type of experience varies among these operators, they all focus on

providing a “localised’’ authentic and unique experience that cannot be experienced by

the general public, and which incorporates local produce, restaurants, accommodation

and attractions.

For example, Auswalk focuses on natural and cultural attractions; Hedonistic Hiking on

high‐end boutique customised tours; Australian Walking Tours provides comfortable and

stylish experiences built around walks to spectacular and iconic locations.

All of them include in their walking experiences other local attractions, such as a visit to

a boutique cheesemaker, or a picnic at an authentic operating farm, thus broadening the

economic benefit of the “bushwalking dollar’’ in the community.


A guided walking industry can be developed without infrastructure or considerable

expense.

It instead requires service and support.

This industry can be developed by facilitating the requirements of existing commercial

operators, providing the facilities and attractions they need, through networking and

liaison within the local community.

To do this, organisations such as the Kentish Council and Cradle Coast Authority must

assist individual operators to find the best attractions that suit their focus, and to help

local operators provide a service or product that suits the needs of these operators.

For example, one operator might provide niche day experiences with a high standard of

boutique accommodation each night, for groups of 4‐12. That operator might find three

B&Bs in Kentish that satisfy its accommodation expectations, but needs 2‐3 more to

ensure availability in times of peak demand. The Kentish council and Cradle Coast

Page | 107

Authority could assist by, in the first instance, finding those initial three, but also

ensuring another three B&Bs make alterations to achieve the desired status.

The same organisations can assist in developing a large enough diversity of experience

around Kentish to attract such guided walking operations, given one mountain – no

matter how many walks are on it – cannot do that by itself.

6. Adding value to walking tracks:

The Kentish municipality could create a distinct market advantage on all its walking

tracks, not just on Mount Roland, by creating greater interpretation, via signs along the

tracks, of such features as flora, fauna, geomorphology, and places of cultural or

historical significance.

This would be of particular advantage on shorter tracks more frequented by casual

walkers and families.

Developing a theme for walks would also create a marketing advantage.

Such themes could be:

• The seven waterfalls in the Mount Roland areas

• Five spectacular lookouts in one day

• Highland Country On Your Doorstep (Mount Roland summit walk and Western Tiers)

• 12 short walks in Kentish

• Mountains, Waterfalls and Rainforest in a Day

Funding options:

Sport and Recreation Tasmania assists with funding applications for federal and state

grants to develop walking tracks that progress government strategies applicable to

improving health and recreation opportunities.

The Parks and Wildlife Service has a limited track upgrades and maintenance budget. It is

hesitant to make new track maintenance commitments given current budgetary

Page | 108

restrictions but track development could potentially be budgeted if a need can be

demonstrated. A need could be demonstrated, among other means, by highlighting a

proposed track is safer than an existing one, that there is economic benefit in the

development of the track, or by organisations such as the North‐West, Launceston and

Hobart bushwalking clubs stating expected usage patterns.

Much of the work could be done by volunteers, such as the walking clubs, through the

Parks & Wildlife Service volunteers program, co‐ordinated by Steve Mansfield, or by

establishing a Friends of Mount Roland group.

2‐year plan:

Year 1:

• Minor signage upgrade on Badgers Track and platform at summit

• Planning, track alignment assessment and lease arrangements for new Mount

• Roland summit track

• Planning, track assessment and interpretation research for Face Track interpretive

walk

• Planning, track alignment assessment and lease arrangements for Mount

• Roland‐Cradle track

• Guided walk industry:

o Begin local asset mapping & SWOT Analysis for developing industry

o Invite likely companies to Kentish for discussions

o Council/CCA act as intermediaries to ensure local tourism industry is ready &

equipped to host significant guided tour industry

• Research and planning for the Kentish Walks network and promotion

• Planning for redevelopment of Kings Rd face track to lookout

Page | 109

Year 2:

• Construction of new Mount Roland summit track

• Construction of viewing platform and interpretive signage on Face Track interpretive

walk

• Construction of Mount Roland‐Cradle track

• Begin guided tour industry

• Internet marketing of new tracks

• Brochures/marketing to promote new track networks and themes

• Production of the Kentish Walks brochures and implementation of promotion

strategy

Page | 110

APPENDIX Q: LOOK‐OUTS AND LOOK‐ATS

Current situation:

Kentish municipality and surrounds is a spectacular environment. Apart from Mount

Roland as a viewing vantage point, the mountain is also a stunning landscape in its own

right.

A redeveloped Round Mountain look‐out is the centerpiece of a Look‐Out Trail that

includes the Mount Roland look‐out on the Kings Rd Face Track, Kimberley’s Lookout on

The Badgers, Leven Canyon, Cruickshank’s Lookout, Liena Lookout on Oliver’s Road and

Devil’s Gullet.

This trail could be promoted as ``The View from the Roof’’ highlighting the capacity to

see vast distances and to look down on all before the viewer.

Lookouts

Round Mountain:

This look‐out provides a magnificent view of the rural North‐West to the sea and

westerly views of Wilmot and the Forth River valley, as well as south towards Cradle

Mountain, and as a dramatic view of the western end of Mount Roland and the southern

Kentish plains. However, it currently features only limited interpretation, facilities, car

parking space and no shelter. It has the capacity to be enhanced. The recent

redevelopment of the Wentworth Falls look‐out in the Blue Mountains outside Sydney

caters for 300,000 visitors a year (Environmental Partnerships, 2011,). After stakeholder

engagement a multi‐disciplinary team made improvements including extended look‐outs

to provide better opportunities for viewpoints. Improved parking for coaches and cars

combined with picnic areas and future plans for public toilets have made this the

gateway to longer walks in the Blue Mountains.

Page | 111

Round Mountain look‐out could become the centre piece of a look‐out trail levering of

other world class look‐outs in the shire of Kentish and its surrounding shires. Future

development of a glass overhung lookout at Devils Gullet emulating, but not on the scale

of, the spectacular Grand Canyon look‐out could be contemplated if demand built.

Face Track Look‐out and Interpretative Walk:

The existing Mount Roland Face Track, from Kings Rd, provides a spectacular climb up

the northern face of Mount Roland to the plateau, and summit. However, the

relentlessness of the two‐hour climb to the plateau is off‐putting for many non‐regular

bushwalkers.

However, spectacular views exist from the top of the tree line, halfway up the face,

about one hour’s walk from the car park. A large rock exists at this point that has been

used as an unofficial look‐out point by walkers for generations. This could be developed

into a more formalised look‐out structure, including interpretation of the natural and

built features of the landscape identifiable from this look‐out point.

The vista extends west from Table Cape across Dial Range, Leven Canyon, the Forth

River valley; Kentish plains, Mersey River and Devonport to the north; and Sassafras

Plains, Mersey River Valley, Quamby Bluff, Meander plains and Ben Lomond to the east;

and almost the entire northern Tasmanian coastline. This gives an almost unrivalled view

of northern Tasmania.

From this point, historical, geomorphological, flora, fauna and cultural interpretation

could be presented, while providing visitors with the view through which they can

interpret and apply the information.

The geomorphological history of this area is dramatic and perhaps unique, including a

rare combination of volcanic, glacial, alluvial, tectonic and coastal landforms. Highlights

include a single lava flow extending from the existing Mersey River Valley to the Forth

Valley, an ancient river that once covered the entire area between those two valleys,

Page | 112

and the volcanic and glacial construction of the Barrington plains, Gog Range, and upper

Mersey and Forth valleys. The outlook also shows a vast amount of the traditional tribal

area of the Six Rivers aboriginal community.

The almost uninterrupted uphill nature of the climb to the look‐out could be broken up

with interpretative signage that explains the local flora, fauna, indigenous and European

culture of the district, endangered species that may be encountered, and geological and

geomorphological highlights.

Kimberleys Lookout, The Badgers:

This provides a stunning 360 degree view unparalleled in northern Tasmania. The view

extends south to the face of Mount Roland, the Western Tiers, Mt Van Dyke and Mt

Claude at its shoulders, west to Cradle Mountain, Barn Bluff, the Forth River valley and

Dial Range, east to the Gog Range, Quamby Bluff, Railton valley, Ben Lomond, Mount

Barrow, Mount Arthur and Sassafras Plains and north to Latrobe, Port Sorell inlet,

Devonport, and the coast from the Tamar River west to Ulverstone,

An existing track is adequately maintained and easily traversed, taking a maximum 90

minutes on the climb and 30 minutes on the return. It is no so steep as to be off‐putting

to non‐regular walkers.

With just the addition of two directional signs and an improved look‐out at the summit

(to enable more people to see the spectacular view at once) this could be one of the

defining iconic views of the North‐West Coast.

The Badgers is almost entirely managed by Forestry Tasmania, which is supportive of this

proposal.

Funding options: An application to the Regional Development Australia Fund could be

made (BRW, 5‐11/5/ 2001, p.11).

Page | 113

Look‐ats

Kentish not only has some magnificent views from high vantage points, it is dominated

by Mount Roland from almost every aspect. The shire has, under the governance and co‐

operation with the Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, provided three

roadside photo opportunity lay‐offs. They are at Wilmot Road, Lower Wilmot; Sheffield

Road, Barrington, and Spring St, Sheffield. Mount Roland from all these sites is an

inspiring sight and demands visual attention. An innovative approach to improving these

sites using frames and sculptures to provide a foreground to the visual natural splendour

may also be a highlight for visitors. The Sheffield Road lay‐off should be moved a short

distance north to take advantage of an unused road reserve area at the beginning of

Weeks Road.

By positioning a car parking area here coaches could easily be accommodated at the

same time as motor vehicles. Enough space could be available to erect a picture frame

viewing area. A simple structure providing all‐weather photographic opportunities of the

mountain could be constructed to create the illusion of a wide screen view. Different

shapes as an alternative to a wide view could be incorporated into the design. Very few

tourists travel without a camera and anything new, spectacular or unusual is hard to

resist.

Funding options:

Look‐outs would be funded by the relevant land manager while roadside look‐ats could

be funded by the Kentish Council, or, where appropriate, as part of DIER works.

Page | 114

APPENDIX R: ABORIGINAL TOURS

Current situation :

Mount Roland is a significant aboriginal cultural site and therefore has great authenticity

as an aboriginal tourism site. It has been described by tourists as a northern Tasmanian

version of Uluru – an outstanding geographical landmark that could be seen from any

direction at great distance and therefore was a landmark not just for the Six River

aboriginal community but neighbouring communities. Key points of aboriginal culture

include:

• Mount Roland was a key point for long‐distance communication between tribes;

• Ochre mines of state significance are found at Gog Range. Ochre mined here ‐ by

women only ‐ was traded across the island during occasional inter‐tribal meetings

and at annual ceremonies in what is now the Walls of Jerusalem. This district is

“Women Only’’ due to the cultural significance of ochre mining being women’s

business. Six Rivers Aboriginal Corporation may decide to conduct guided tours of

the Gog Range mine sites. It may add to the authenticity of the tourism experience

that only women be allowed on such tours, which also, importantly, maintains the

cultural integrity of the site;

• Ceremonial and cultural women’s places are found at creeks at the foot of the

mountain;

• There would have been hunting grounds on the plateau and at the back of the

mountain;

• Evidence of habitation has been found in caves on the southern edge of Mount

Roland;

• One aboriginal habitation site in the Forth Valley has been dated to 34,000 years ago

– one of the oldest in Tasmania. While one site in the south‐west has been dated at

40,000 years ago, most Tasmanian aboriginal activity around the coast has long

since been inundated by higher sea levels. Therefore, most coastal sites, such as The

Page | 115

Mersey Bluff, date only to 10,000‐12,000 years ago (Rocky Cape = 8000 years, West

Coast = 8000 years);

• Aboriginal hunting blinds have been found and documented south‐west of Mount

Roland;

• It is also of great significance due to its place in the Six Rivers culture, and known as

Ta Neem Er Ra (Big Grass Plain);

• There are caves, rock shelters and special cultural and ceremonial areas on top and on the

faces of the mountain;

• Mount Roland, Van Dyke and Claude are all one entity in aboriginal culture.

o (sourced from Tiagarra aboriginal centre, Devonport; Six Rivers aboriginal

community; historian Peter Sims)

Proposed Aboriginal cultural tourism activities

• Storytelling

• Guided walks

• Cultural tours

- Visiting sites and explaining their significance

- Highlighting flora and fauna, their significance and stories

• Bush tucker

• Night tours (wildlife)

• Interpretation

• Community activities

• Day tours

• Overnight camps

Potential markets

• Regular tours for those staying at Silver Ridge, Lemonthyme Lodge, Cradle Mountain

and other accommodation in Kentish.

Page | 116

• Visitors to Tiagarra in Devonport, who are already seeking an aboriginal culture

experience.

• Spirit of Tasmania passenger arrivals

• Schools – a significant part of this proposal involves educational experiences for

students at several levels. Schools are already developing similar programs (in

conjunction with Sport and Recreation Tasmania), including camping tours, bush

experiences, flora and fauna education and interpretation, cultural studies and

Tasmanian history. Mount Roland could be one of the foundation attractions for

cultural/ heritage/ history/ natural studies educational experiences for all local

schools.

Implementation

Aboriginal tours of the Mount Roland precinct would be managed by the Six Rivers

Aboriginal Corporation, custodians of this traditional Six Rivers tribal territory. Six Rivers

runs Tiagarra in Devonport and the Panatana cultural experience at Squeaking Point. This

has focused on school groups and education experiences and has recently expanded into

a commercial tourism operation.

There are successful similar examples in the Atherton Tablelands, Bairnsdale, Lakes

Entrance, north‐west of Geelong and at Shepparton. Carnarvon Gorge tourism in

Queensland is managed entirely by the local indigenous community.

Infrastructure

Aboriginal tours could operate from the Tiagarra base in Devonport and later be based at

the proposed History and Cultural Interpretation Centre, Gowrie Park. No other fixed

infrastructure would be required on the guided tours.

Page | 117

Marketing

Promotional material could be distributed through Tiagarra at Devonport, onboard the

Spirit of Tasmania, through the mainland indigenous tourism network and established

Visitor Information Centres.

Funding options

Six Rivers could apply for Federal Government Aboriginal Tourism grants, Natural

Resource Management grants and State Tourism grants to help establish the tourism

experience and it would thereafter be funded by ongoing commercial operations.

Page | 118

APPENDIX S: HISTORY, CULTURE AND NATURE INTERPRETATION CENTRE

Current situation

Research has indicated that history is a principal motivation for visitors to come to

Tasmania. Therefore it is recommended that a local interpretation centre be constructed

to enhance the complete visitor experience in Kentish. It should include the outstanding

collection of static displays and information at the renowned Sheffield Museum, but also

feature interactive, experience‐based interpretation.

Touted as the gateway to the Kentish area, Gowrie Park could potentially be an ideal

location. Located on Claude Road, a major arterial road, near Mount Roland and Cradle

Mountain, the ease of access creates an opportunity to capture the curiosity of locals,

intrastate and interstate visitors to gain insight into wilderness areas, before embarking

on their respective local experiences. This experience must be both emotionally and

intellectually stimulating for each visitor providing authenticity. These stories should

include the following:

• Highland trappers

• Mountain cattlemen

• The Original North West Trading Route – the story of Henry Hellyer and his

exploration.

• Indigenous stories told by local indigenous groups and explained in detail in the

previous associated scenario: Indigenous Tours:

• European history around Mount Roland:

• Timber cutting to build Melbourne; then agriculture started on the cleared land

• Silver and lead mining at Round Mountain

• Lorinna gold mining – 5 Mile Rise link to Cradle Mountain

• Hydro based at Gowrie Park to build Mersey‐Forth Scheme

Page | 119

• Gustav and Kate Weindorfer climbed Mount Roland during their honeymoon –

that’s when Gustav first saw Cradle Mountain

• Geomorphological experiences to explain the intricate processes of land formations

in the region.

• Rare diversity of volcanic, glacial, tectonic and erosion formations

An interpretation centre provides visitors with an understanding of local cultural and

natural resources. Interpreters have a pivotal role in portraying an understanding and

appreciation of “sense of place’’. It is recommended that delivery of stories be

conducted by fully trained interpreters who have a knowledge of, and commitment to,

caring for their place – a resource that exists in large numbers in Kentish. This caring

instils civic pride which in turn provides employment opportunities through interpretive

stories and guided tours. Moreover, potential exists for business expansion especially in

the areas of guided tours, accommodation, dining and retail.

The interpretation centre has the potential to incorporate a natural focus with the

promotion of all of the walking tracks in the area providing information including times,

condition and gradients. It is recommended that the walking track information be

situated within the interpretation centre to provide the bushwalker with a holistic

wilderness experience that incorporates a positive interaction with the natural and

cultural values of the precinct.

Implementation

It is envisaged that the interpretation centre be phased in over three years, depending

on the availability of funding. Initially it is important to appoint a Project Manager/

Curator to gather and catalogue stories and develop a framework for interpretation and

presentation. It is also recommended to train local interpreters to relate stories at

temporary premises, for example the Sheffield Museum or the Sheffield Visitors

Information Centre.

Page | 120

Governance

Governance needs to be dealt with in an area management plan which must be done

before any development can take place. A collaborative approach from all levels of

government: federal, state and local, is essential for the success of the project.

Funding options

Funding for the project may be procured from Federal Government especially through

Indigenous grants and the Regional Fund. It is essential that State Government is

involved with the procurement of the land required to erect infrastructure at a chosen

site. Land tenure of the Gowrie Park area is Crown Land, managed by the Department of

Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), Mount Roland Regional

Reserve managed by Parks and Wildlife Service, Kentish Council, Hydro Tasmania and

private land holdings. It is recommended that the Kentish Council develop a plan for the

Interpretation Centre, and then make submissions to Federal and State Governments for

funding.

Marketing

Marketing can be achieved through a combined scenario including Tourism Tasmania

and local marketing groups, such as Devonport and Cradle Country. However, it is

recommended that a brochure be developed similar to the current Tarkine Experience

pamphlet, but which focuses solely on the Kentish area.

There is difficulty in marketing the Kentish area due to the zoning structure determined

by Tourism Tasmania. Cradle Mountain and its surrounds are included in the Wilderness

zone, but Kentish is primarily marketed within the North West Coast zone. There is,

therefore, a tendency to alienate Kentish from the Cradle Mountain visitor experience,

when research shows that Cradle Mountain is identified as a drawcard for Kentish.

Page | 121

APPENDIX T: CABLE CAR

Current situation

Mount Roland is not easily accessible by visitors other than those with high levels of

walking skills. Possible ways of getting to the summit are:

• Walking

• Other carriage means such as by horse

• Vehicular access via construction of a road

• Other mechanic means such as a cable car, travelator or lift

• By air, such as helicopter

Easier access to the summit of Mount Roland is supported by the community as

indicated by the community survey and at the public forum. However, the various access

options, except bushwalking, were both well supported and strongly opposed in the

Kentish Community Survey, indicating a polarisation in the community over access

means that involve significant infrastructure. A road to the summit or plateau had, on

balance, little support in the Community Survey. Helicopter flights were the most

strongly opposed of the 37 development types put in the Community Survey. The

support for horses was not measured, but this means faces considerable regulatory

hurdles relating to access of non‐native animals to a State Reserve.

The cable car was the second‐most suggested development in the Community Survey,

yet among the least popular when support was measured against opposition. So how

does the community move forward?

Challenges

Development of a cable car to the summit of Mount Roland or other elevations on the

mountain is clearly a contested issue and has been raised over a period of twenty years.

Page | 122

Can a cable car be blended into the mountain so that it is not visible from Sheffield?

Some past and present Kentish councillors believe positioning at the Gowrie Park face of

the mountain would achieve this requirement. This location had most support from the

community survey as well as tourism stakeholders, as the most supported site for

development on Mount Roland.

A proposal to develop a cable car in Wollongong NSW is almost a mirror of the Mount

Roland development. The Illawarra Mercury (2011) surveyed the community about the

suitability of a particular site for a cable car compared with the proposed site of a private

development by local land owner John Watson. Mr Watson’s site was the least

supported site and since the survey, public opposition has snowballed with many

residents protesting at the entrance to the site of the development (Illawarra Mercury,

2011). Protest organiser Fleur Trezise stated, "… there's no infrastructure and there

would be significant and unacceptable noise pollution, visual and environmental

degradation issues." Wollongong City Council is supportive of a cable car and its General

Manager, formerly the Cairns City Council Manager, said “Council would consider a

proposal on its property but would need to be satisfied about factors such as financial

sustainability, environmental impact and amenity of nearby residents. A number of

regulatory requirements would also need to be met” (Illawarra Mercury, 2011).

Governance

Statutory regulation:

There are major issues around the governance of any cable car development process.

Land tenure at any proposed site may include private land, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife

Service‐managed land (Mount Roland Regional Reserve and potentially the Mount

Roland Conservation Area on the northern face), and small parcels of Kentish Council

land. The Regional Reserve and Conservation Area have slightly different management

objectives (Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania, 2003). Any activities proposed on PWS

managed land must undergo a Reserve Activity Assessment (RAA) process. This is the

Page | 123

environmental impact assessment system used by PWS to determine the level of risk in

relation to environmental, social and economic elements (DPIPWE, 2010).

One of the main values that guide the future of development is Landscape Value.

Particular care should be taken to protect landscape values at locations that include

areas of high priority or significance (Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice

2003:23). These can be scenically important views, areas of summit or skyline, visible

from coastal waters, roads, walking tracks, lookouts, and other vantage points or are

culturally important. The code states that activities with potential to affect landscape

values from the perspective of urban or rural centres will be assessed for visual

sensitivities. Planning and Building approvals must be in accordance with local

government by‐laws and strategic plans and frameworks of the Reserve management

body where they exist. Designs must be assessed and approved by a qualified person

and where necessary council approval must be obtained prior to tenders being called

(Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice 2003:76).

Another principle for reserve management is a systematic planning process (Tasmanian

Reserve Management Code of Practice 2003:7). There is no existing comprehensive

management plan for the Mount Roland Regional Reserve. Without the guidance of a

management plan, any proposed development could only be assessed with reference to

the relevant Acts of Parliament (Tasmanian Reserve Management Code of Practice,

2003). There are many.

Acts of Parliament:

• National Parks and Reserves Management Act 2002

• Nature Conservation Act 2002

• Aboriginal Relics Act 1975

• Forestry Act 1920

• Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995

• Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

Page | 124

• State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 under the SPPA

• Environmental Protection Policies under Section 96G of the EMPCA

• Local government planning schemes where relevant

• Local Government (Building and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1993 Section 64 and

Regulations (replaced by Section 4 Building Act 2000 and Building Regulations 2004)

• Relevant Australian Standards

Additionally, approval through the following Tasmanian legislation may be required:

• Development Approval, where required by Planning Directive No.2 of the Land Use

Planning and Approvals Act 1993

• Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994

• Forest Practices Act 1985

• Mineral Resources Development Act 1995

• Living Marine Resources Management Act 1995

• State Policies and Projects Act 1993 (SPPA)

• Water Management Act 1999

Note that the RAA process would take into account all of the above Acts and

Regulations.

Commonwealth ministerial approval is also required where an activity is likely to have a

significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance as defined under

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and it has not been

approved:

• by the State Government in accordance with an assessment and approval process or

management plan which is the subject of a bilateral agreement under this Act; or

• by another Commonwealth agency in accordance with a management plan

accredited by the Commonwealth Environment Minister; or

• subject to a state assessment process accredited by the Commonwealth under the

Regional Forest Agreement. 89

Page | 125

To sum up, the planning and approval process for significant infrastructure such as that

demanded by the cable car proposal is complex and lengthy and to implement such a

proposal is beyond the scope of this study. If this proposal was pursued, without an

overarching management plan, its implementation could be delayed by passionate

objectors seeking intervention at the Federal ministerial level.

Funding:

Any cable car development on Mount Roland should be entirely funded by private

enterprise.

Documents

MT ROLAND: DEVELOPING A DESTINATION APPENDICES · • Existing tourism industry based on niche but strongly branded foundation: o Murals o Annual events Muralfest, Steamfest, Taste