kunanyi (Mt Wellington) zipline – representation and rejection
In February 2025, a development application was lodged with Hobart City Council for a zipline from The Springs to a location near Strickland Falls (upper Strickland Avenue). A description of the proposal can be found here. The TNPA and many others made representations against the proposal.
The TNPA opposes the proposed zipline because it is another example of a private commercial development on protected public land which impacts on both the natural and cultural (Aboriginal and historical) values of Wellington Park and the appreciation of those values by current visitors.
The zipline does not comply with the requirement to “provide high quality tourism and recreational opportunities and facilities consistent with the appreciation and enjoyment of the environmental … and cultural values of the Park” (Wellington Park Management Plan, section 2.5.2, Management Objectives).
Specific concerns include:
- Road safety: the zipline crosses the Pinnacle Road twice. Do we really want drivers on the Pinnacle Road distracted by zipline riders whizzing overhead? The zipline also crosses several mountain bike tracks so a similar safety concern applies to mountain bike riders.
- The zipline also crosses several walking tracks. The sudden appearance and noise of a fast-moving zipliner will detract from the experience of all walkers seeking peace and quiet.
- It is self-evident that this is a Tourist Operation, and Tourist Operations are prohibited in the Recreation Zone, which covers most of the zipline route. Compliance with the management plan requires acceptance of the ludicrous proposition that the zipline is a “potential transport mode”. Its main function is to give a maximum of two riders at any one time a 90 second adrenaline rush for which they will pay well over $100.
UPDATE
On 12 March the Hobart City Council’s planning committee (elected councillors) refused (6 votes to 4) the development application for a zipline on Kunanyi from The Springs down to near Strickland Falls.
The HCC planner’s report recommended approval using the contrived argument that the zipline was a transport solution, not a tourist operation, in an attempt to circumvent a management plan prohibition on Tourist Operations in this zone of the park.
With a planner’s report recommending approval the elected councillors would have been justified in approving the application without close scrutiny. Fortunately a majority of the councillors did exercise their own judgement and concluded that the application was not compliant with the management plan and, therefore, needed to be refused.
The refusal is both welcome and appropriate but it is alarming that the HCC planners seem to have felt obliged to provide council with an assessment report which provided a pathway to approval.