The final approval required before the development could proceed was from local government.

The Central Highland Council (CHC) received 1346 submissions; only three supported the proposal! Some went into great environmental, historical and legal detail. The consensus is that these detailed submissions were of greater import than the pro formas and petitions.

On 26 February 2019 the CHC made its final decision on the Development Application (DA) at a public meeting. There were about 100 visitors present, and, apart from the proponent and his wife, all appeared to oppose the DA. After listening to the views of speakers in the audience, Councillors Lou Triffitt, Anthony Archer, Tony Bailey, Anita Campbell, Robert Cassidy, and Julie Honnerthis voted against approving the DA. This was loudly applauded by the meeting. There were many grounds for refusing the DA and the mayor emphasised that a small regional council should not have the responsibility for deciding whether the proposal complied with the requirements of the management plan for the TWWHA.

As expected, the proponent has appealed the council’s refusal of his DA.

The appeal will be heard by the Resource Management and Planning Appeal Tribunal (RMPAT) at a five day hearing listed for 24-28 June 2019. This appeal is not just about Lake Malbena. It will have significant implications for the processes by which these tourism developments within our precious

wilderness areas gain approval. It is likely to have a direct bearing on the numerous proposals that are currently going through the Tasmanian Government’s controversial Expressions of Interest process, many of which are likely to pose similar threats to Tasmania’s wilderness and our reserve estate.

Without support, the council’s refusal of the DA seems likely to be overturned at the appeal. For this reason the Tasmanian National Parks Association, the Wilderness Society (Tasmania) and two individuals with long connections to the area have made the expensive commitment of joining the appeal to support CHC’s refusal of the DA. The RMPAT hearing requires the engagement of legal representatives and expert witnesses – the likely cost will be tens of thousands of dollars.

This appeal under Tasmanian legislation should not be confused with the Wilderness Society’s challenge to the federal government approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is yet to be finalised but the most likely outcome is that the new federal minister will remake the approval decision to correct some legal technicalities exposed by the challenge.