Submission applicant 19 November 2021 - planning.tas.gov.au

Submission applicant 19 November 2021From: Poppy Scharkie To: TPC Enquiry Cc: [email protected]; Irene Duckett; Forrest, Angela Subject: RE: HPE CM: FW: Glamorgan Spring Bay 2015 - draft amendment AM 2018-03 - TPC letter granting extension Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 11:03:06 AM Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg image003.png image004.png image005.png
Dear Mr Ramsay, Please find in the below link the following documents: 1. Response to TPC Request for Further Information re Draft Amendment AM 2018-03 relating to Agricultural Potential of the Site 2. Bushfire Hazard Management Report, Cambria 3. Cambria Green Economic Analysis, November 2021 https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1ybkf96mdodi2aq/AABJzXxdkJeVe_6UnZF41yQXa?dl=0 The requests for information issued in the directions form the Tasmanian Planning Scheme relating to this matter should now be responded in full. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you need to. Kind Regards, Poppy Scharkie Graduate Planner Monday & Thursday 9-5pm Tuesday & Wednesday 9-2pm i reneinc P L A N N I N G & U R B A N D E S I G N 49 Tasma Street North Hobart TAS 7001 Tel 03 6234 9281 Extension 106 Fax 03 6231 4727 Email [email protected] Website ireneinc.com.au
From: Poppy Scharkie Sent: Monday, October 25, 2021 10:07 AM To: TPC Enquiry <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Irene Duckett <[email protected]>; au <[email protected]> Subject: RE: HPE CM: FW: Glamorgan Spring Bay 2015 - draft amendment AM 2018-03 - TPC letter granting extension Dear Mr Ramsay,
As per our communication dated the 11th of October, please find in the below link the photomontages as well as a redacted version of the Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Assessment https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fiwhisrf53gxdeb/AADGBNCQHfKraycpF31d16GTa?dl=0 Kind Regards, Poppy Scharkie Graduate Planner Monday & Thursday 9-5pm Tuesday & Wednesday 9-2pm i reneinc P L A N N I N G & U R B A N D E S I G N 49 Tasma Street North Hobart TAS 7001 Tel 03 6234 9281 Extension 106 Fax 03 6231 4727 Email [email protected] Website ireneinc.com.au
Kind regards
Level 3 144 Macquarie Street Hobart TAS 7000 GPO Box 1691 Hobart TAS 7001
03 6165 6806 www.planning.tas.gov.au
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged (in which case neither is waived or lost by mistaken delivery). The email and any attachments are intended only for the intended addressee(s). Please notify us by return email if you have received this email and any attachments by mistake, and delete them. If this email and any attachments include advice, that advice is based on, and limited to, the instructions received by the sender. Any unauthorised use of this email and any attachments is expressly prohibited. Any liability in connection with any viruses or other defects in this email and any attachments, is limited to re-supplying this email and any attachments.
From: Poppy Scharkie <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 11 October 2021 2:41 PM To: TPC Enquiry <[email protected]> Cc: Irene Duckett <[email protected]> Subject: HPE CM: FW: Glamorgan Spring Bay 2015 - draft amendment AM 2018-03 - TPC letter granting extension Dear Mr Ramsay
Please find attached a letter in response to correspondence from the TPC dated the 30th of September. In addition please find the below list of information in response to directions issued on the 19th of May in the following link https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6rd3wfb10ooqoyh/AAD-yOM4Y3GshHE6JOedP-7Ga?dl=0the:
Cambria Tourism Development Proposal Aboriginal Heritage Desktop Assessment
Master Planning Hotel Precinct Plan 2016050SK012B, Life Design Architects, 19/07/2016 (Architectural Plans)
Renders of Conference facility by Life Design Architects
Water Access Response, AK consulting, 20/09/2021
Farm Water Access Plan Cambria Kind Regards, Poppy Scharkie Graduate Planner Monday & Thursday 9-5pm Tuesday & Wednesday 9-2pm i reneinc P L A N N I N G & U R B A N D E S I G N 49 Tasma Street North Hobart TAS 7001 Tel 03 6234 9281 Extension 106 Fax 03 6231 4727 Email [email protected] Website ireneinc.com.au
GPO Box 1691 Hobart Tas 7001 03 6165 6828 www.planning.tas.gov.au
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged (in which case neither is waived or lost by mistaken delivery). The email and any attachments are intended only for the intended addressee(s). Please notify us by return email if you have received this email and any attachments by mistake, and delete them. If this email and any attachments include advice, that advice is based on, and limited to, the instructions received by the sender. Any unauthorised use of this email and any attachments is expressly prohibited. Any liability in connection with any viruses or other defects in this email and any attachments, is limited to re-supplying this email and any attachments.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
Email • [email protected]
ABN • 38 617 869 600
Response to TPC Request for Further Information re Draft Amendment AM 2018-03 relating to Agricultural
Potential of the Site
Report prepared by Dr Reuben Wells, Ag Logic Pty Ltd 8th November, 2021
Introduction Regarding the potential changes in land use at the property Cambria, the Tasmanian Planning Commission has requested further information from the applicant to assist with hearings relating to Draft Amendment AM 2018-03.
Ag Logic has been requested by the proponent to assist in this, by responding to the requests for more information relating to the agricultural potential of the site. Ag Logic supplied an initial report to the proponent in June 2017, and a following supplemental report on the 4th of March, 2019. The areas Ag Logic can address are outlined in Section 2 of the request for information, and are summarised below.
Section 2 has asked that the applicant include a consideration of five specific components relating to agricultural potential. These are:
a) The Enterprise Suitability Maps produced by DPIPWE;
b) The methodology outlined in the Department of Justice report Agricultural Land Mapping
Project – Background Report;
c) The Glamorgan Spring Bay draft Local Provisions Schedule (draft LPS), and the report from
AK Consultants titled Decision Tree and Guidelines for Mapping the Agricultural and Rural
Zones;
d) Zoning of the site in the Glamorgan Spring Bay draft LP; and
e) The inclusion of the land in the Swan River Irrigation District
Background on the original Ag Logic report I was requested to provide information on the agricultural potential of the site. The proponent expressed the desire to use that information to assist in supporting areas they may wish to develop more intensive agricultural operations, and also to focus non-agricultural development on areas that had lesser agricultural potential.
To assist this I interrogated the relevant available data on factors of agronomic significance, and then carried out ground surveys to help understand the variability across the site. From this, I supplied Cambria with a series of maps, indicating the areas that appeared to have the best prospects for use for annual cropping, perennial cropping, improved pastures and native (or unimproved) pasture grazing.
The zoning in these maps was intended as a recommendation to guide the proponent’s agricultural development strategy.
Response To TPC Request For Further Information Re Draft Amendment AM 2018.Docx
8 November 2021
Ag Logic Pty Ltd • 27 Redwood Cres., Youngtown TAS• www.aglogic.com.au • [email protected] • 0448 947 286
Consideration of the Enterprise Suitability Maps produced by DPIPWE
Background on the Enterprise Suitability Mapping (ESM) project The Enterprise Suitability mapping project carried out by DPIPWE sought to create a map that modelled the likelihood of site suitability for a range of crops. The initial crops focused on were: barley; blueberries; carrots; carrot seed; cherries; hazelnuts; industrial hemp; linseed; lucerne; olives; onions; poppies; potatoes; pyrethrum; raspberries; rye grass for dairy; strawberries; wheat and wine grapes (pinot noir and chardonnay) (Enterprise Suitability Toolkit | Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania (dpipwe.tas.gov.au)).
The process involved developing two key sets of maps for the state, one set based on temperature variability, and one based on soil variability. Next, rules were developed for each crop, in consultation with a range of experts and other sources. These rules were applied to the climate and soils maps to model the suitability of a site, initially on an 80 m x 80 m grid and more recently on a 30 x 30 m grid.
The exception to this is the layers indicating table wine and sparkling wine grape suitability, which do not use the digital soil maps and are based on temperature alone.
Appropriate use of the ESM outputs The ESM outputs are excellent sources of information to assist in the initial suitability of a site, however they have limitations that it is important to be aware of. The most important of these is the weighting put into the digital soil map layers.
The Digital Soil Maps (DSM) created to provide the key soil attributes were developed by comparing soil test sites against elevation, gamma radiometry, surface geology and multispectral satellite imagery (Kidd et al, 2014). Using 930 existing and new soil tests, a model was developed of Tasmania’s soils (including validation via 260 new soil test pits).
This approach to soil mapping is a recent development within the soil science world, and is continually being refined. At the time of production of the ESM layers, all of these soil test pits were in the Midlands region of Tasmania, and few in areas with geology similar to the region (see Figure 1). This means the models created for Tasmania and used within the ESM layer calculations was not developed using any on-ground validation from sites close to Cambria, and as a result applying caution when using ESM layers that incorporate DSM is prudent in this region.
8 November 2021
Figure 1 Soil sampling sites used for production of the Digital Soil Maps in relation to Cambria. Soil samples
are shown as circles. The rough location of Cambria is indicated by a green flag. Data from LISTmap - Land Information System Tasmania (thelist.tas.gov.au).
I considered there was a reasonable chance that the DSM layers would not represent the site well, based on Cambria’s distance from the validation areas. To check this, I conducted an inspection of the site, including digging a number of soil test holes. My observations of the site were quite different to the modelled soil attributes – in particular, it appeared that the model significantly over- estimated the soil depth in many areas. This was very obvious in the large area on the west of the property in the dolerite hills – in areas the model predicts over 50 cm of soil depth, sheet rock was evident, while other areas showed clear signs of waterlogging due to heavy clay layers preventing significant root penetration.
Overestimating rooting depth means that the ESM layers that utilise the DSM data are likely to over- estimate suitability, since increased soil depth is almost always considered a positive attribute for crop growth.
The ESM layers themselves have evolved to recognise these limitations, in particular with modifications to the layers modelling suitability for grape production. Given the demonstrated success of vineyards in the region, the farm’s suitability for viticultural development was a particular focus during my assessments. The ESM data for the farm indicates that it has, at worst, a moderate suitability (requiring frost protection), to sites that are well suited (the highest endorsement in the ESM scale). Crucially, however, the table wine and sparkling wine grapes were updated following their initial release, and the current maps are calculated using climate alone. No soil attributes have been used to create these maps.
Best practice use for the ESM maps requires an on-ground assessment, and my assessment indicated that soil attributes would be the main limiting factor for development of vineyards. In many areas the soil is not ideal for vineyard production at all, given the limited rooting depth in many areas. Vines are great survivors, and one of the attributes that makes them robust is the ability to develop a deep root system. Soils that prevent this lead to vines that have low vigour, and often low fruit
8 November 2021
quality as a result of the difficulties in growth from soil moisture content moving rapidly from too dry to too wet.
Degree of consideration of the Enterprise Suitability Maps in Ag Logic’s assessment The Enterprise Suitability Maps were an important part of the preparation of Ag Logic’s maps, along with several of the data layers generated from the project to assist in preparation of may report. The maps indicating growing degree days and frost risk, for instance, are an outcome of the enterprise suitability mapping project and were sourced from the DPIPWE team who created the suitability maps.
For the reasons outlined above I determined that an alternative conclusion was warranted in many areas. In the case of all but the table wine and sparkling wine grape layers, this was due to an overestimation of rooting depth. In the case of the table wine and sparkling wine grape layers, no soil data informed the creation of these maps at all. My observations of the site indicated that the main limitation on the property is caused by insufficient rooting depth leading to either localised water logging, and/or a high susceptibility to plants not having sufficient available water. This is reflected in the maps produced with the original report, and the subsequent supplemental report.
Consideration of the methodology outlined in the Department of Justice report Agricultural Land Mapping Project – Background Report This methodology was not considered during the preparation of either the original report for Cambria, or the supplemental report, since it did not form part of the original brief. The original report was supplied in June of 2017, and largely prepared prior to the release of the Department of Justice report.
The Ag Logic reports aimed to be more granular and practical than the zoning process outlined in the DoJ report. To put the Ag Logic reports in context, it was accepted that most of the property could be used for agriculture. Applying the methodology within the Department of Justice report would indicate that the property can be classified within the Agricultural Zone, and is unconstrained.
It is noted that this report indicates that the zoning should also have regard to local mapping carried out on a site, which the Ag Logic reports would be.
The DoJ report also outlines various scale-based criteria for assessing land. The Ag Logic reports were also designed to assist the proponents to focus non-agricultural developments into areas where the scale of land converted from agricultural use would not impact the viability of any potential or actual agricultural development.
Consideration of the Glamorgan Spring Bay draft Local Provisions Schedule (draft LPS), and the report from AK Consultants titled Decision Tree and Guidelines for Mapping the Agricultural and Rural Zone The report from AK consultants (April, 2018) aligns with the DoJ report, and goes further to include the land capability in more detail.
Given its publication 10 months after the preparation of the original Ag Logic report, it was not available for consideration at that time.
Th AK Consultants report refers to the Land Capability system as an additional refinement to the zoning process.
The existing Land Capability zoning was presented in the supplemental Ag Logic report, prepared on the 4th of March 2019. As noted in that report, and also in the report from AK Consultants, at 1:100,000 the Land Capability mapping is not scaled for use on a property-level where a higher resolution of mapping is required (1:25,000 maximum). This is what was carried out by Ag Logic in
Response To TPC Request For Further Information Re Draft Amendment AM 2018.Docx
8 November 2021
the original report.
The guidelines in the report from AK Consultants supports the conclusion above that the property can be classified in the agricultural zone, and is largely unconstrained.
Consideration of the inclusion of the land in the Swan River Irrigation District As noted in the supplemental report prepared by Ag Logic, the availability of irrigation was not considered in the original report, and was assumed to be non-limiting. Irrigation availability was implicit in the zoning of areas suitable for perennial horticulture for instance, since the frequency of multi-season periods with very little rain in that region mean that irrigation is a prerequisite for a successful development.
The source of that water was not considered in great detail, however at the time of preparation of the Ag Logic reports, it was considered likely that the site would be able to access water from the proposed (as it was then) Swan River scheme.
It is important to note that irrigation alone does not make a site with shallow soil suitable to greater agricultural intensity, even though one of the symptoms of this soil is an increased likelihood of plants being deficient in moisture. The inability to hold much moisture puts very high pressures on irrigation infrastructure to apply small, frequent irrigations, in a way that is impractical and risky for commercial scale agricultural developments. Complicating the irrigation is the rapid saturation of the shallow soil, leading to run-off, waterlogging and other detrimental impacts.
Conclusion The reports prepared for the proponents of the development at Cambria were designed to help target areas where development will be less impacting on agricultural potential, and to identify sites where investment in further agriculture is warranted.
As someone with significant experience and understanding of the enterprise suitability maps, I was able to use the important parts of this data set in preparation of my reports, but was also able to understand the limitations. Rooting depth was considered to be a major factor influencing suitability across the property. The enterprise suitability map estimate of rooting depth did not agree with my observations at the property.
The report aimed to be a practical tool to assist the proponents to plan their developments with minimal impact on the overall agricultural productivity of the site (and the ability to improve this where possible). As a practical document, it was not focused on the zoning parameters outlined in the documents referred to in the request for further information. However, I have added a consideration of those reports above. The zoning of the property as an unconstrained agricultural property seems to match the attributes of the property.
Date: November 2021 Author: Jacqui Blowfield Accreditation Number BFP – 102
49 Tasma Street, North Hobart, TAS 7000 Tel (03) 6234 9281 Fax (03) 6231 4727 Email [email protected]
ireneinc PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN
CAMBRIA – SWANSEA & DOLPHIN SANDS
SPECIFIC AREA PLAN (SAP)
BUSHFIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT REPORT
CONTENTS
1.1 AUTHOR STATEMENT 4 1.2 LIMITATIONS 4 1.3 BACKGROUND 4
2. THE SITE 6
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 6
3. THE PROPOSAL 7
4. SITE ANALYSIS 8
4.1.1 LOCALITY 8 4.1.2 PLANNING 8 4.1.3 TOPOGRAPHY 9 4.1.4 VEGETATION DESCRIPTION 10 4.1.5 FIRE HISTORY 10
5. BUSHFIRE-PRONE AREAS CODE 12
5.1 APPLICATION OF THE CODE 12 5.1.1 TFS REPRESENTATION 13 5.1.2 VULNERABLE USES APPLICABLE 13 5.2 USE STANDARDS FOR VULNERABLE USES (E1.5.1) 13 5.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF P1 – LOCATION OF VULNERABLE USE 14 5.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF A2 - BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 14 5.2.3 ASSESSMENT OF A3 – BUSHFIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 5.3 USE STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS USES (E1.5.2) 15 5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION 15
6. BUILDING ACT 2000 16
ireneinc PLANNING & URBAN DESIGN Cambria SAP – Bushfire Report 3
6.1 APPLICATION 16 6.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS 17 6.3 DEEMED-TO-SATISFY REQUIREMENT 17 6.3.1 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS (4.1) 17 6.3.2 PROPERTY ACCESS (4.2) 18 6.3.3 WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE FIGHTING (4.3) 19 6.3.4 HAZARD MANAGEMENT AREAS (4.4) 19 6.3.5 EMERGENCY PLAN (4.5) 21
7. CONCLUSION 22
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHOR STATEMENT
I am an Accredited Person under Section 60B of the Fire Services Act 1979 (Accreditation number BFP – 102) with scope of work - 1, 2, 3A, 3B and 3C.
The assessment undertaken and opinions expressed within this report have been undertaken by the author.
1.2 LIMITATIONS
The assessments within this report have been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Australian Standard 3959 Construction of buildings in bushfire-prone areas, the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code of the applicable Planning Scheme and the applicable Director’s Determinations.
I have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the information provided in this assessment is accurate and reflects the conditions on and around the site at the date of this report.
1.3 BACKGROUND
During the exhibition of the Draft Amendment a representation was received from Tasmanian Fire Service, in which the following advice was provided:
…Tasmania Fire Service regards the site and surrounding area as bushfire-prone and currently undertakes a range of bushfire mitigation activities in the Swansea and Dolphin Sands area. There have been wildfires in the area as recently as the 2014-15 fire season and properties were lost at Dolphin Sands in the 2010-11 fire season.
The planning report lodged with Council by Irene Inc [sic] canvasses the bushfire issue and it is expected by Tasmania Fire Service that bushfire will remain a feature of the site and surrounding area into the future. It is the Tasmania Fire Service view that the bushfire- prone area code must be explicitly applied to the land subject to the Specific Area Plan to ensure the early and adequate consideration of bushfire for all future development on the site. …
The Tasmanian Planning Commission (TPC) have asked for additional information to be provided to assist in the consideration of the application, including as follows:
13 Bushfire risk management
Given the potential range of uses and developments identified on the Concept Masterplan that is included at section 4.2 in the document titled: Cambria, Tasmania – Amendment to the Glamorgan Spring Bay Interim Planning Scheme, dated 19 March 2018, and their potential location, is there any independent report or expert advice on bushfire risk and how bushfire risk can be managed?
The Concept Masterplan referred to above is contained in the figure below:
Figure 1: Concept Masterplan
2. THE SITE
2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject land is comprised of the following:
ADDRESS PID TITLE REF. LOT AREA Lot 1 Tasman Highway, Swansea 3362891 251306/1 643.6ha
3362883 233262/1 174.5ha 2521619 100096/1 452.6ha 2521627 100097/1 551ha 3362787 115706/1 41.45ha
Tasman Highway, Swansea 5280937 115706/2 25.19ha 148927/1 12.53ha
'Cambria', 13566 Tasman Highway, Swansea 3362795 148001/1 320.5ha 'Belmont', 14079 Tasman Highway, Swansea 2281985 149607/1 385.3ha Lot 1 Dolphin Sands Road, Dolphin Sands 3362779 111628/1 428.2ha 485 Dolphin Sands Road, Dolphin Sands 7284296 23216/3 58.34ha Dolphin Sands Road Dolphin Sands 7284309 23216/2 55.13ha
The location of the subject land is described in the following figure:
Figure 2: Locality Map with topographic from www.theLIST.tas.gov.au © The State of Tasmania
3. THE PROPOSAL
The proposal is a draft amendment to the planning scheme which includes: • A new Specific Area Plan (SAP) for the subject land; • Some partial rezoning of areas of the subject land; • Additional to the Code overlays, including Coastal Inundation High Hazard Area, Coastal
Erosion High Hazard Area, and the Biodiversity Protection Area, within parts of the subject land; and
• Amendment to the ordinance Historic Heritage Code table of heritage sites.
The proposed precincts which relate to the provisions of the SAP is described in the following figure:
Figure 3: Diagram of SAP precincts with the topographic plan from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
In general terms the Planning Scheme, currently and as proposed through the draft amendment, provides for a range of uses which would include the development of habitable buildings on the subject land. These allowable uses include those which would be defined, by either the Planning Scheme, the Building Act or both, as vulnerable or hazardous uses.
4. SITE ANALYSIS
The following section describes the characteristics of the land and adjacent land.
4.1.1 LOCALITY
The subject land includes a variety of areas with different underlying geology, topography and vegetation communities. The land to the west inland is rural land with the topography varying from flat to moderately sloping in parts, vegetation includes open grassland areas, lightly treed woodland as well as forested areas. The land centrally through the Tasman Highway corridor is largely flat open grazing or agricultural land, apart from some patches of remnant forest. To the east the land includes the inland side of the Dolphin Sands spit, containing both treed and cleared areas.
Figure 4: Aerial with ESRI imagery & road centrelines from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
4.1.2 PLANNING
The subject land is within the Glamorgan Spring Bay Municipality and therefore the current applicable planning scheme is the Glamorgan-Spring Bay Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The subject land is zoned Rural Resource and Significant Agricultural, with surrounding zones including Environmental Management, Particular Purpose - Dolphin Sands and Rural Living, as described in the following figure:
Figure 5: Zone plan, with IPS zones & topographic from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
The subject land is also covered, in whole or part by overlays associated with various codes within the Planning Scheme including Biodiversity Protection Areas, Bushfire Prone Areas, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Coastal Inundation Hazard Areas, Heritage Areas, Landslide Hazard Areas, Potential Acid Sulphate Soils, Scenic Road Corridor, and Waterways & Coastal Protections Areas.
Specifically relevant to this assessment is the Bushfire Prone Areas Overlay which covers the entirety of the subject land.
4.1.3 TOPOGRAPHY
The following figure illustrates the topography of the subject land and surrounds:
Figure 6: Topography with Hillshade grey, Road centrelines & Rivers streams & creeks from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
4.1.4 VEGETATION DESCRIPTION
As described previously and further in the figure below the TasVeg community groups present on the subject land are:
• West of the Tasman Highway, a combination of ‘Dry eucalypt forest and woodland’ and native and modified grassland;
• Through the Tasman Highway corridor, largely modified land; and
• Along the Dolphin Sands spit a combination of modified land, ‘Dry eucalypt forest and woodland’ and at the eastern end ‘Scrub, heathland and coastal complexes’.
Figure 7: Vegetation groups with TasVeg 4 Groups, road centrelines and simplified topographic from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
4.1.5 FIRE HISTORY
The following provides detail of the mapped fire history of the subject land and surrounds:
Figure 8: Subject land west of Tasman Hwy Figure 9 Subject land west of Tasman Hwy with Fire history, Simplified topographic & Road centrelines from www.thelist.tas.gov.au © the State of Tasmania
The mapped history of bushfire, west of the Tasman Highway, includes the largest and most recent event from the 2019-2020 season, other smaller scattered events are mapped from 2015, 2017 and 2018.
The mapped history, east of the Tasman Highway, includes 2 controlled burns within the subject land, other events include in 2014 at the eastern tip of the subject land, in 2009-2010 along the southern edge of Dolphin Sands and norther of the subject land smaller events are mapped from 2017, 2018 and 2020.
5. BUSHFIRE-PRONE AREAS CODE
5.1 APPLICATION OF THE CODE
In accordance with the Planning Scheme, the Bushfire Prone Areas Code applies to the subject land as a Bushfire prone area given that:
bushfire- prone area
means: (a) land that is within the boundary of a bushfire-prone area shown on an overlay
on a planning scheme map; …
The whole of the land is mapped by the overlay. The standards of the Bushfire Prone Areas Code will apply to applications relating to vulnerable uses or hazardous uses, defined by the Code as:
hazardous use
means a use where: (a) the amount of hazardous chemicals used, handled, generated or stored on a
site exceeds the manifest quantity as specified in the Work Health and Safety Regulations 2012; or
(b) explosives are stored on a site and where classified as an explosives location or large explosives location as specified in the Explosives Act 2012.
vulnerable use
means a use that is within one of the following Use Classes: (a) Custodial Facility; (b) Educational and Occasional Care; (c) Hospital Services; (d) Residential if for respite centre, residential aged care home, retirement
home, and group home.
The following Scheme definitions are also relevant to vulnerable uses:
Custodial facility1
use of land, other than psychiatric facilities, for detaining or reforming persons committed by the courts or during judicial proceedings. Examples include a prison, remand centre and any other type of detention facility.
Educational and occasional care1
use of land for educational or short-term care purposes. Examples include a childcare centre, day respite facility, employment training centre, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school and tertiary institution.
group home2 means use of land for residential accommodation for people with disabilities.
Hospital services1
use of land to provide health care (including preventative care, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment, rehabilitation, psychiatric care and counselling) to persons admitted as inpatients. If the land is so used, the use includes the care or treatment of outpatients.
respite centre2 means use of land for respite care for the sick, aged or persons with disabilities.
residential aged care facility3
means use of land for accommodation and personal or nursing care for the aged. It includes recreational, health or laundry facilities and services for residents of the facility.
1 GSBIPS 2015, Clause 8.2 2 GSBIPS 2015, Clause E1.3 3 GSBIPS 2015, Clause 4.0
The standards of the Bushfire Prone Areas Code also apply to applications for and subdivision.
5.1.1 TFS REPRESENTATION
As detailed previously the subject land is all mapped as being within the Bushfire Prone areas Overlay. This mapping was introduced into the Planning Scheme through a planning scheme amendment on 5 November 2020.
The representation authored by TFS advised that:
… It is the Tasmania Fire Service view that the bushfire-prone area code must be explicitly applied to the land subject to the Specific Area Plan to ensure the early and adequate consideration of bushfire for all future development on the site. …
is dated 14 June 2018, prior to the 2020 amendment to the Planning Scheme. The inclusion of the mapped overlay across the planning scheme area has resulted in the explicit application of the Code to the subject land.
5.1.2 VULNERABLE USES APPLICABLE
The use classes defined by the Code as vulnerable uses and applicable to the subject site and draft amendment are as follows:
Current Rural Resource & Significant Agricultural Zones
SAP Concept Masterplan
Yes Yes
Palliative care
As detailed Educational and Occasional Care is provided for both under the current zones and the draft amendment. Palliative Care as Hospital Services is proposed by the draft amendment.
5.2 USE STANDARDS FOR VULNERABLE USES (E1.5.1)
The requirements for Vulnerable Uses are as follows:
Objective: Vulnerable uses can only be located on land within a bushfire-prone area where tolerable risks are achieved through mitigation measures that take into account the specific characteristics of both the vulnerable use and the bushfire hazard.
APPLICABLE STANDARD
P1 A vulnerable use must only be located in a bushfire-prone area if a tolerable risk from bushfire can be achieved and maintained, having regard to: (a) the location, characteristics, nature and scale of the use; (b) whether there is an overriding benefit to the community; (c) whether there is no suitable alternative lower-risk site; (d) the emergency management strategy and bushfire hazard management plan; and (e) other advice, if any, from the TFS.
5.2.1 ASSESSMENT OF P1 – LOCATION OF VULNERABLE USE
As there is no acceptable solution in the Code any application involving a use defined by the Code as a vulnerable use would require discretionary consideration against P1.
Whether a specific proposal could meet P1 would entirely depend on the type of use, the intensity and scale of the use, the specific siting and access as well as the detailed design of buildings.
5.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF A2 - BUSHFIRE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Any future application for Educational and Occasional Care or Palliative Care (Hospital Services) uses would require the development of a Bushfire Emergency Management Strategy that was endorsed by TFS.
Development of a Strategy would require consultation with the proponent and/or operator and TFS. It would consider the type and number of occupants, and the extent of a number of special needs.
The location and siting of the facility would be considered in relation to the topography and type of surrounding vegetation and the extent of hazard management separation to the bushfire prone vegetation which could be provided (Bushfire Attack Level). The possible construction level of buildings under AS3959 would also be considered and therefore the resulting degree of protection available for the building/s.
The Strategy would consider the most appropriate primary and secondary actions, between evacuation from the site or sheltering depending on the risk factors identified in the above analysis. This would include the identification of onsite and offsite refuges.
The Strategy would also consider the triggers and actions which would be included within the Emergency Management Plan which would consider detailed strategies with triggers for implementing the required range of responses including pre-emptive site closure, evacuation and shelter in place. The strategy would also include a structure for liaison with TFS during events or in preparation for extreme forecast conditions etc.
Review of the Strategy by the TFS would be considered in conjunction with review of Bushfire Hazard Management Plans to consider the overall risk and mitigation factors to establish whether the Bushfire Emergency Management Strategy could be endorsed.
A2 An emergency management strategy, endorsed by the TFS or accredited person, that provides for mitigation measures to achieve and maintain a level of tolerable risk that is specifically developed to address the characteristics, nature and scale of the use considering: (a) the nature of the bushfire-prone vegetation including the type, fuel load, structure and
flammability; (b) the ability of occupants of the vulnerable use to:
(i) protect themselves and defend property from bushfire attack; (ii) evacuate in an emergency; and (iii) understand and respond to instructions in the event of a bushfire; and
(c) any bushfire protection measures available to reduce risk to emergency service personnel.
A3 A bushfire hazard management plan that contains appropriate bushfire protection measures that is certified by the TFS or an accredited person.
5.2.3 ASSESSMENT OF A3 – BUSHFIRE HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN
A Bushfire Hazard Management Plan is required to meet this Standard and while the Code does not have any development standards to be met and incorporated in a BHMP there are specific requirements based on the building classification under the Building Act and Directors Determination, though either meeting Deemed to Comply or Performance Requirements. These requirements are considered in detail in part 6 of this report.
5.3 USE STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS USES (E1.5.2)
Under the definition hazardous uses can be any Use Class where hazardous chemicals are stored over a specified quantity, it is therefore not directly related to the uses provided for by the draft amendment.
In relation to the applicable uses, things like agricultural uses where quantities of fuel may be stored for convenience may trigger a hazardous use definition. The uses provided for though the draft amendment SAP do not appear more likely to trigger consideration as a hazardous use than the range of uses provided for though the current zone provisions.
If any future application did involve a hazardous use the standards and considerations are similar to those outlined above for vulnerable uses.
5.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBDIVISION
Any future subdivision application related to the land, either under the current Planning Scheme provisions, or if approved under the SAP, would require a bushfire assessment and development of a Bushfire Hazard Management Plan which addressed the following standards for provision of:
• building areas provided with suitable separation from bushfire-prone vegetation through hazard management areas on the BHMP;
• suitable access from a road to the building area and any firefighting water point; and
• suitable dedicated static water supply.
It is considered that the draft amendment does not impact on the consideration of bushfire as it relates to any future subdivision as the applicable Code standard would be required to be met in either case.
6. BUILDING ACT 2000
The building application / approval process includes requirements related to bushfire as specified under the applicable Directors Determinations, in clause 2.(1) the Director’s Determination – Bushfire Hazard Areas the following applies:
(1) This Determination applies to a building located in a bushfire-prone area of the following Class: (a) Class 1; (b) Class 2; (c) Class 3; (d) Class 8; (e) Class 9; and (f) Class 10a that is closer than 6 metres to a habitable building.
(2) Despite subsection (1), this Determination does not apply to buildings which are integral to the agricultural use of the land and which are not normally occupied.
Under the National Construction Code the Building Classifications relevant to the site and draft amendment, to which these requirements apply, are defined as follows:
Class 1: one or more buildings which in association constitute— (a) Class 1a — a single dwelling being—
(i) a detached house; … (b) Class 1b —
(i) a boarding house, guest house, hostel or the like— (A) with a total area of all floors not exceeding 300m2 measured
over the enclosing walls of the Class 1b; and (B) in which not more than 12 persons would ordinarily be resident;
or (ii) 4 or more single dwellings located on one allotment and used for
short-term holiday accommodation, which are not located above or below another dwelling or another Class of building other than a private garage.
Class 3: a residential building, other than a building of Class 1 or 2, which is a common place of long term or transient living for a number of unrelated persons, including— (a) a boarding house, guest house, hostel, lodging house or backpackers
accommodation; or (b) a residential part of a hotel or motel; or (c) a residential part of a school; or …(e) a residential part of a health-care building which accommodates members
of staff; …
Class 8: a laboratory, or a building in which a handicraft or process for the production, assembling, altering, repairing, packing, finishing, or cleaning of goods or produce is carried on for trade, sale, or gain.
Class 9: a building of a public nature— (a) Class 9a — a health-care building, including those parts of the building set
aside as a laboratory; or (b) Class 9b — an assembly building, including a trade workshop, laboratory
or the like in a primary or secondary school, but excluding any other parts of the building that are of another Class; …
Class 10: a non-habitable building or structure— (a) Class 10a — a non-habitable building being a private garage, carport, shed,
or the like;
6.2 PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
The following Performance Requirements are applicable to the above building classes:
(1) A building to which this Determination applies must, to the degree necessary, be: (a) Designed and constructed to reduce the ignition from bushfire, appropriate to
the – (i) Potential for ignition caused by burning embers, radiant heat or flame
generated by bushfire; and (ii) Intensity of the bushfire attack on the building;
(b) Provided with vehicular access to the site to assist firefighting and emergency personnel to defend the building or evacuate occupants;
(c) Provided with access at all times to a sufficient supply of water for firefighting purposes on the site; and
(d) Provided with appropriate separation of the building from the bushfire hazard. (2) The performance requirement specified in subclause (1)(a) is applicable to the
following: (a) a Class 1, 2 or 3 building; or (b) a Class 10a building or deck associated with a Class 1, 2 or 3 building.
Compliance with the following Deemed to Satisfy Requirements are considered to meet these Performance Requirements.
6.3 DEEMED-TO-SATISFY REQUIREMENT
REQUIREMENT
(1) Building work (including additions or alterations to an existing building) in a bushfire- prone area must be designed and constructed in accordance with an Acceptable Construction Manual determined by the BCA, being either: - (a) AS 3959-2018; or (b) Nash Standard - Steel Framed Construction in Bushfire Areas as appropriate for a BAL determined for that site.
(2) Subclause (1)(a) is applicable to the following: (a) a Class 1, 2 or 3 building; or (b) a Class 10a building or deck associated with a Class 1, 2 or 3 building.
(3) Subclause (1)(b) is applicable to the following: (a) a Class 1 building; or
(b) a Class 10a building or deck associated with a Class 1 building.
(4) Despite subsection (1) above, variations from requirements specified in 1(a) and 1(b) are as specified in Table 4.1 below.
(5) Despite subsections (1) and (4) above, performance requirements for buildings subject to BAL 40 or BAL Flame Zone (BAL-FZ) are not satisfied by compliance with subsections (1) or (4) above.
Comment: this means that where BAL 40 or BAL FZ is assessed, the Performance Requirements are not satisfied by complying with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Requirements.
Table 4.1 Construction Requirement & Construction Variations Column 1 Column 2 Element Requirement … C Construction standard
for vulnerable use Building work for a building classified as a vulnerable use must be constructed to a BAL that is determined in a BHMP certified by an accredited person. *
* Note:
Building Regulations 2014 11A. Vulnerable use The use of a building for any of the following is a vulnerable use: (a) an accommodation building (corresponding to BCA Class 1b or Class 3); (b) an accommodation building (corresponding to BCA Class 2) but only if it is used as a guest
house, hostel, …; …(d) a health-care building (corresponding to BCA Class 9a); (e) an assembly building (corresponding to BCA Class 9b);…
The required construction requirements to meet the Deemed to Comply requirements apply to residential buildings and in accordance with the above other buildings intended for vulnerable use, this includes visitor accommodation buildings.
The construction standard required is linked to the extent of managed clearance around a building that can be established and maintained to provide separation between the building and the bushfire prone vegetation. The extent of separation required is based on a site-specific assessment of the location proposed for building through assessment of the vegetation type and the slope of the surrounding land within proximity of in the order of 100m, being the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment.
6.3.2 PROPERTY ACCESS (4.2)
REQUIREMENT
(1) A new building constructed in a bushfire-prone area must be provided with property access to the building area and the firefighting water point, accessible by a carriageway, designed and constructed as specified in subsection (4) below.
…(4) Vehicular access from a public road to a building must: (a) Meet the property access requirements described in Table 4.2; (b) Include access from a public road to within 90 metres of the furthest part of the
building measured as a hose lay; and (c) Include access to the hardstand area for the firefighting water point.
Table 4.2 includes design requirements for accesses over 30m in length, with additional passing bay requirements where accesses serve more than 2 properties or where the access exceeds 200m in length.
It is considered that future buildings located within the subject land, could be designed to be provided with accesses that meets these design requirements, subject to approval for associated works and including things such as vegetation removal.
6.3.3 WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE FIGHTING (4.3)
REQUIREMENT
(1) A new building constructed in a bushfire-prone area, must be provided with a water supply dedicated for firefighting purposes as specified in subsections (4) and (5) below.
…(4) Water supplies for firefighting must meet the requirements described in Tables 4.3A or 4.3B.
(5) The water supply must be: (a) Provided from a fire hydrant or static water supply; (b) Located within the specified distance from the building to be protected; and (c) Provided with a hardstand and suitable connections.
Table 4.3B includes requirements for firefighting water points within 90m of all parts of buildings being protected, minimum reserved static water storage, appropriate fire resistant design and/or materials for static storage, fixtures and fittings, signage and hardstand area for access
Assessment of the availability of a suitable bushfire fighting water supply for any future buildings would consider the access and capacity of the intended fire fighting water supply.
6.3.4 HAZARD MANAGEMENT AREAS (4.4)
REQUIREMENT
(1) A new building constructed in a bushfire-prone area must be provided with a HMA of sufficient dimensions and which provides an area around the building which separates the building from the bushfire hazard and complies with subsections (4), (5) and (6) below.
…(4) The HMA must comply with Table 4.4; and
(5) The HMA for a particular BAL must have the minimum dimensions required for the separation distances specified for that BAL in Table 2.6 of AS 3959-2018; and
(6) The HMA must be established such that fuels are reduced sufficiently, and other hazards are removed such that the fuels and other hazards do not significantly contribute to the bushfire attack.
Table 4.5 Hazard Management Area Requirements Column 1 Column 2 Element Requirement B Hazard management
areas for new buildings on lots not provided with a BAL at the time of subdivision.
A new building must: (a) Be located on the lot so as to be provided with a HMA no
smaller than the separation distances required for BAL 29; and
…
D Hazard management areas for new buildings and additions and alterations to buildings classified as an accommodation building BCA Class 1b, BCA Class 2, or BCA Class 3, …
A new building or an alteration or addition must: (a) Be:
(i) located on the lot so as to be provided with HMAs no smaller than the separation distances required for BAL 12.5; or
(ii) provided with a certificate from an accredited person that a bushfire hazard management plan provides, to the degree necessary, separation of the building from the bushfire hazard, appropriate resistance to ignition from bushfire, property access and water supply for firefighting;
and (b) Have an HMA established in accordance with a certified
bushfire hazard management plan. E Hazard management
areas for new buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings classified as vulnerable use as defined in the Bushfire-Prone Areas Code…
A new building or an addition or alteration including change of use must: (a) Be:
(i) located on the lot so as to be provided with HMAs no smaller than the separation distances required for BAL 12.5; or
(ii) provided with a certificate from an accredited person that a bushfire hazard management plan provides, to the degree necessary, separation of the building from the bushfire hazard, appropriate resistance to ignition from bushfire, property access and water supply for firefighting;
and (b) Have a HMA established in accordance with a certified
bushfire hazard management plan. F Hazard management
areas for new buildings or additions and alterations to buildings associated with a hazardous use
A new building or an alteration or addition, including change of use, for a building determined as a hazardous use must: (a) Be located on the lot so as to be provided with HMAs no
smaller than the required separation distances for the BAL determined in the certified bushfire hazard management plan; and
(b) Have a HMA established in accordance with a certified bushfire hazard management plan.
The above provisions detail the required hazard management requirements on existing lots, the BAL 29 separation is required as a general requirement, however, the requirement for vulnerable and hazardous uses are significantly greater given the increased level of risk associated with either category.
The BAL 12.5 separation required for vulnerable buildings, including visitor accommodation buildings, would require substantially greater areas of vegetation management to meet these deemed to comply provisions.
It is often the case that for the development of visitor accommodation within rural areas and bushland settings the Deemed to Comply BAL 12.5 requirement would conflict with either the desired character of the development, or with the retention of natural values, or both.
It is the case that for this element a Performance solution can become an alternate option where either higher BAL construction requirements can be included to reduce the required management areas or even in some cases development will rely on a combination of construction requirements and the Emergency Management Planning mechanisms (detailed below) which can incorporate site closures and evacuations in certain conditions.
6.3.5 EMERGENCY PLAN (4.5)
REQUIREMENT
(1) An emergency plan must be provided for: (a) New buildings and additions and alterations to buildings classified as an
accommodation building (Class 1b, Class 2, or Class 3) other than a group home for persons with a disability, a respite centre or a residential aged care facility or similar; or
(b) A new building, extension or addition to a building, or change of use classified as a vulnerable use, constructed in a bushfire-prone area; and
(2) The emergency plan must comply with Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Requirements for Emergency Planning Column 1 Column 2 Element Requirement A Emergency plans An emergency plan must be developed for the site which is:
(a) Compliant with the TFS Bushfire Emergency Planning Guidelines; and
(b) Approved by TFS or a person accredited by the TFS.
Emergency Management Plans would be required for visitor accommodation developments, educational and palliative care facilities, as well assembly buildings. Emergency Management Plan/s would be required to be developed along the lines of the Bushfire Emergency Management Strategy outlined previously in Part 5.2.2, and would subject to assessment and require approval by TFS.
7. CONCLUSION
The land subject to the draft amendment is mapped with the Bushfire Prone Areas overlay within the Planning scheme and therefore the Bushfire Prone areas Code of the Planning Scheme applies. The Code has standards applicable to defined vulnerable and hazardous uses and to development of subdivision.
Both the current Planning Scheme provisions of the existing zones, as well as the uses provided for through the SAP within the draft amendment, allow for uses that may need to demonstrate they can meet the standards.
Any assessment against the standards would rely on detailed design, specific siting assessment, an understanding of the proposed use, users and intensity to determine appropriate bushfire mitigation strategies and allow consideration against the Code standards.
In relation to subdivision is it considered that the draft amendment will not affect bushfire planning.
Bushfire requirements are also triggered for future habitable buildings that are within the specified Building Classifications, including the vulnerable uses defined under building includes visitor accommodation and assembly buildings.
The requirements would include certified Bushfire Hazard Management Plans for future buildings and, where associated with vulnerable uses, Bushfire Emergency Plans approved by TFS. The development and assessment of these plans, for any future development, would again be based on specific design, location, and siting, as well as information on the type and number of users or occupants.
CAMBRIA GREEN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Cambria Green Economic Analysis - UPDATE REPORT 101121
© SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd 2019
This report has been prepared for Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management. SGS Economics and Planning has taken all due care in the preparation of this report. However, SGS and its associated consultants are not liable to any person or entity for any damage or loss that has occurred, or may occur, in relation to that person or entity taking or not taking action in respect of any representation, statement, opinion or advice referred to herein.
SGS Economics and Planning Pty Ltd ACN 007 437 729 www.sgsep.com.au Offices in Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Sydney
Cambria Green Economic analysis i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IV
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Development Proposal 1 1.2 Tourism Trends 1 1.3 Golf Tourism in Tasmania and Australia 3 1.4 COVID travel restrictions, economic recovery and the future of tourism 4 1.5 Potential impacts for Cambria Green 13
2. ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT 16
2.1 Modelling Framework 16 2.2 Impacts Considered for Assessment 16 2.3 Sensitivity Testing 21 2.4 Impact of COVID 22
3. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS 24
3.1 The CBA Analysis 24 3.2 Costs and Benefits 24 3.1 Impact of COVID 28 3.2 Summary and Recommendations 29
APPENDIX 1 – ASSUMPTIONS 30
APPENDIX 2 - CEGEM 33
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 17: ESTIMATED TOTAL VISITATOR EXPENDITURE BY SCENARIO, 2017 TO 2033 ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
FIGURE 1: MONTHLY INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS, ALL AUSTRALIA, 2015 TO 2021 4
FIGURE 2: MONTHLY INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS, TASMANIA, 2015 TO 2021 5
FIGURE 3: TOTAL ANNUAL INTERSTATE VISITORS TO TASMANIA, FINANCIAL YEARS 2011 TO 2021 6
FIGURE 4: ANNUAL INTERSTATE VISITORS TO TASMANIA BY ORIGIN, FINANCIAL YEARS 2011 TO 2021 6
FIGURE 5: TOTAL VISITOR SPEND ($ MILLIONS), ALL TASMANIA, 2017 TO 2021 7 FIGURE 6: AVERAGE VISITOR SPEND, ALL TASMANIA, 2017 TO 2021 7 FIGURE 7: INDUSTRIES BY SHARE OF GDP, SOUTH EAST COAST SA3, 2019-20 8
Cambria Green Economic analysis ii
FIGURE 8: ABS JOBS INDEX, SOUTH EAST COAST (TAS.) SA3, JANUARY 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 2021 9
FIGURE 9: ABS JOBS INDEX BY INDUSTRY, ALL TASMANIA, JANUARY 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 2021 9
FIGURE 10: ABS WAGE INDEX BY INDUSTRY, ALL TASMANIA, JANUARY 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 2021 10
FIGURE 11: ABS WAGES INDEX, ALL TASMANIA, JANUARY 2020 TO SEPTEMBER 2021 10 FIGURE 12: JOBKEEPER APPLICATIONS PROCESSED, SOUTH EAST COAST (TAS.) SA3, 2020
TO 2021 11 FIGURE 13: JOBSEEKER RECIPIENTS, SOUTH EAST COAST (TAS.) SA3, 2020 TO 2021 12 FIGURE 14: JOBSEEKER RECIPIENTS, ALL TASMANIA, 2020 TO 2021 12 FIGURE 15: INTERSTATE VISTIATION SCENARIOS, 2012 TO 2033 14 FIGURE 16: INTERNATIONAL VISTIATION SCENARIOS, 2015 TO 2033 14 FIGURE 17: ESTIMATED TOTAL VISITATOR EXPENDITURE BY SCENARIO, 2017 TO 2033 15 FIGURE 18: ECONOMIC IMPACT OVER TIME - GRP ($ MILLIONS) 20 FIGURE 19: ECONOMIC IMPACT OVER TIME – GRI ($ MILLIONS) 20 FIGURE 20: CUMULATIVE GRP DEVIATION FROM BASE CASE 21 FIGURE 23: AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 25 FIGURE 17: ESTIMATED TOTAL VISITATOR EXPENDITURE BY SCENARIO, 2017 TO 2033 29 FIGURE 24: DYNAMIC SIMULATION USING CEGEM 35 FIGURE 25: SOUTH EAST COAST (TAS.) SA3 36
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND TIMING SUMMARY 17 TABLE 2: ECONOMIC IMPACTS – CONSTRUCTION PHASE (ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2023 –
2024) 18 TABLE 3: OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY 18 TABLE 4: ADDITIONAL TOURISM IMPACTS (SPENDING ON THE EAST COAST) SUMMARY 19 TABLE 5: ECONOMIC IMPACTS – OPERATIONAL PHASE (ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2025 –
2038) 19 TABLE 6: ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS 20 TABLE 7: LOW SCENARIO RESULTS – NET PRESENT VALUE OF IMPACTS (EAST COAST) 21 TABLE 8: ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN TASMANIAN GRP ON 2019 LEVELS, BY SCENARIO 22 TABLE 9: ANNUAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY SCENARIO, YEAR 1 TO 5 AND YEAR 10 23 TABLE 10: IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL 24 TABLE 11: WEDDING VENUE - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 30 TABLE 12: HOTEL (SKY RESORT) - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 30 TABLE 13: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE CENTRE - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 30 TABLE 14: GOLF COURSE AND CLUBHOUSE - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 31 TABLE 15: RETIREMENT FACILITIS - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 31 TABLE 16: VILLAS - KEY ASSUMPTIONS 31 TABLE 17 GROSS OPERATING SUPLUS AND WORKER COMPENSATION BY DIFFERENT
TOURISM RELATED INDUSTRIES (%) 32 TABLE 18 SECTORS AND REGIONS IN CEGEM 34
Cambria Green Economic analysis iii
Cambria Green Economic analysis iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management intends to seek consent for the development of an integrated tourist destination at Dolphin Sands, which lies north of the Township of Swansea.
This report is an updated economic assessment of the proposed development after its initial lodgement in 2018. This update was completed in November 2021, and considers an updated timeline as well as the possible impacts of the pandemic on the development.
The resort complex intends to attract a tourism market segment which is not currently serviced for within the region, attracting affluent travellers from overseas and across Australia. Once complete, it will offer a set of integrated services, including:
Luxury hotel accommodation (Sky Resort), with 120 rooms 200 luxury villas and units for visitor accommodation A restored homestead and surrounding English gardens, to be used as a wedding venue
which is expected to host 50 events a year A world class golf course with practice facilities and luxury club house, expected to
support 30,000 rounds of golf per annum An international conference centre expected to host 26 events, of 100 attendees each,
annually Units of health retreat and temporary retirement facilities
These facilities are envisaged to be built between 2023 and 2028, with a total construction cost of almost $140 million.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND TIMING SUMMARY
Resort Facility Commencement Completion Nominal Construction Cost
Wedding venue (includes restored homestead) 2023 2024 $10,000,000
Hotel (Sky Resort) 2023 2024 $35,000,000
International Conference Centre 2023 2024 $5,000,000
Golf Course and Clubhouse 2023 2024 $8,000,000
Retirement Facilities 2024 2026 $20,000,000
Villas 2025 2028 $60,000,000
Note: Land acquisition costs excluded Source: SGS Economics & Planning
This report, prepared by SGS Economics & Planning (SGS), presents a high level of socio- economic analysis of the proposal and the socio-economic benefits the development may generate for the East Coast region of Tasmania, particularly the surrounding towns and communities. The analysis consists of an economic impact assessment and a high-level qualitative cost benefit analysis1.
1 Key economic modelling inputs on construction and operational costs, and resort visitation were supplied by the proponent.
Cambria Green Economic analysis v
Economic Impact Assessment An Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) generates an estimate of the level of economic activity associated with project implementation by tracing how the economic stimuli accumulate in an economy through multiple rounds of economic transactions. This analysis has been conducted using the Cadence Economics General Equilibrium Model (CEGEM), which is Cadence Economics’ in-house Computable General Equilibrium model, and is a multi-region, multi-sector representation of both the East Coast and the Tasmanian economies. The timeframe for the analysis extends from 2023 to 2038.
The results of the economic impact assessment indicate that the development (summarised in the tables below) will result in:
Increased investment with a net present value of $217 million across Tasmania, of which $196 million will be within the East Coast region. This represents both the direct construction stimulus of the development, as well as additional investment induced by its operation
Increased gross regional product (GRP) (i.e. value-added) with a net present value of $219 million across Tasmania. For the East Coast region, this represents an additional $5.63 million per annum from 2023 to 2024 (construction phase) and an additional $22.95 million per annum (on average) from 2025 to 2038 (operational phase)
Increased gross regional income (GRI) with a net present value of $474 million across Tasmania (payments to labour, capital and taxes collected). For the East Coast region, this represents an additional $6.67 million per annum from 2023 to 2024 and an additional $42 million per annum (on average) from 2025 to 2038
An average of 63.86 additional full time equivalent (FTE) jobs across Tasmania. This will be associated with a 5.1 per cent increase in real wages in the East Coast region. The remainder of the jobs required for construction and operation are estimated to be transferred from elsewhere in the economy
ECONOMIC IMPACTS – CONSTRUCTION PHASE (ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2023 – 2024)
East Coast Rest of Tasmania Total Tasmania
Gross Regional Product ($m) 5.63 0.31 5.9
Gross Regional Income ($m) 6.67 2.19 8.9
Employment (FTE) 15.33 2.10 17.4
Real wage deviation (%) 1.33 0.01 -
Investment ($m) 17.95 (0.20) 17.7
ECONOMIC IMPACTS – OPERATIONAL PHASE (ANNUAL AVERAGE FROM 2025 – 2038)
East Coast Rest of Tasmania Total Tasmania
Gross Regional Product ($m) 22.95 5.52 28.5
Gross Regional Income ($m) 42.03 19.01 61.0
Employment (FTE) 63.86 8.84 72.7
Real wage deviation (%) 5.13 0.02 5.2
Investment ($m) 17.96 3.03 21.0
While the pandemic has had a significant impact on the tourism industry throughout Tasmania, it is expected that the industry will enjoy a recovery period as national and international borders reopen. Based on scenario modelling looking at three tourism recovery scenarios, the project is not expected to be significantly adversely affected. The development would largely become operational once the sector has recovered. In case of a very pessimistic
Cambria Green Economic analysis vi
scenario, there is the opportunity to slightly delay and/or adjust the target market to a more domestic market, which has proven to be solid during the pandemic.
Cost Benefit Analysis A Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) assesses the merit of investing in a project, i.e. it assesses if it is worth doing when a broad societal perspective is taken. A CBA contrasts the project’s economic, social and environmental benefits with its costs, to establish if the benefits outweigh the costs. If this is the case, the project is considered worth doing from a broad community welfare (or economic efficiency) perspective.
The cost benefit analysis was conducted qualitatively and at a high level to consider the economic benefits in tandem with a consideration of any other economic, social and environmental benefits and costs involved with the proposed development. These are summarised in the table below.
The results of the high-level cost-benefit analysis highlight that:
The development will generate a range of benefits for the community of Dolphin Sands and Swansea, including significant visitor and new resident spending, skills development, improved business confidence and population increases which support services. This is of significance given the declining and ageing population trends of the region and high dwelling vacancy rates
In addition to construction and operating costs, the development may also impose costs on the community including loss of agricultural land (minor), and environmental costs (minor if properly managed, moderate to significant if poorly managed)
Because the resort targets an underdeveloped tourism market segment, the majority of the visitor spending is additional to existing tourism spending. It will generate flow-on spending in the local community of Swansea, rather than competition with existing operators
Although the analysis is at too high a level to make a definitive judgement of whether the proposal is beneficial from a community welfare perspective. If the economic benefits can be realised, and the social and environmental factors are appropriately managed, then the proposal would be overall beneficial.
Moreover, the costs identified are mostly born by the investors, while the benefits accrue to both the investors and the community.
IDENTIFIED COMMUNITY COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSAL
Costs Scale
Construction and operating costs Significant - in comparison to developments that typically occur in the region.
Loss of agricultural land Minor
Environmental costs - runoff Minor if well managed. Moderate to significant, if poorly managed
Benefits
Visitor spending benefits – at the resort Significant. Profits accrue to investors, while significant economic impacts are captured by the local region due to the investment and operational activities of the resort2
Visitor spending benefits – rest of the region
Significant, if demand is realised, $39M per annum. The total added value to the economy is more than three times the size of the profits that accrue to the investors.
2 Note that financial profits only constitute a small share of the overall impacts generated. Chapter 3 of this report measures the impacts (i.e. value added and employment creation) captured by the local region and remainder of Tasmania, which are stimulated by the large investment and operational activities of the resort, and their flow-on impacts
Cambria Green Economic analysis vii
Positive contribution to the high-end tourism brand of the region
Significant, if demand is realised
Skills development and jobs Significant, if demand is realised
Improved business confidence and recreational benefits
Significant, if demand is realised
Population growth and demographic change
Significant, if the development attracts new residents to the region.
Improvement of landscape values Significant
Restoration of historic values Significant
The pandemic and the recovery period after travel restrictions is unlikely to significantly affect the proposed development. By the time it becomes operational, tourism is expected to have recovered. Only in case of a very slow recovery there may be a need to adjust the opening and/or target marketing for some period of time.
Qualified assessment
SGS has relied on data and resourcing provided by the project proponent, Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management, and has not undertaken a detailed review of these estimates or checked their veracity.
Cambria Green Economic analysis 1
1. INTRODUCTION
SGS Economics and Planning was commissioned to undertake an economic analysis of an integrated tourism development at Dolphin Sands, on Tasmania’s east coast. This report presents an economic impact assessment and a high-level cost benefit analyses of the proposed development.
1.1 Development Proposal Cambria Green Agriculture & Tourism Management intends to seek consent for the development of an integrated tourist destination at Dolphin Sands, which lies north of the township of Swansea.
This report provides an assessment of the economic impacts, costs and benefits of a potential development scenario for the site as envisaged by the proponent. The resort complex intends to attract a market segment which is not currently serviced within the region, attracting extremely affluent travellers from overseas and across Australia. When complete, it will offer a set of integrated services, including:
Luxury hotel accommodation (Sky Resort) Luxury villas and units for visitor accommodation A restored homestead and surrounding English gardens, to be used as a wedding venue A world class golf course with practice facilities and luxury club house An international conference centre Units of health retreat and temporary retirement facilities
1.2 Tourism Trends Tourism is an important contributor to the sustainable development of regional areas around Australia. It is often advocated as a means to diversify economic conditions in rural and regional areas by providing alternative sources of employment and income generation in times of downturn in traditional industries such as agriculture and forestry.3
The Tasmanian Government released T21, The Tasmanian Visitor Economy Strategy 2015- 2020 to grow Tasmania’s tourism industry with a partnership between the public and private sectors, with the goals of attracting 1.5 million visitors and $2.47 billion in visitor spending annually. The Tasmanian Government’s Access 2020 Strategy aims to increase domestic air and sea capacity and frequency, improve seasonal demand, and increase international visitation, as well as introducing a small number of direct international flights4.
Tasmania has a well-established and recognised ‘tourism brand’ and the Australian Innovation Research Centre (AIRC) recently prepared a report for the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development that identified six main areas of opportunity for Tasmania, including tourism generally, and more specifically ‘experiential’ tourism, i.e. tourism related to the island’s wilderness and consumption of gourmet products.
3 Carmen Cox & Meredith Wray (2011), Best Practice Marketing for Regional Tourism Destinations, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28:5, 524-540 4 Tourism Australia (2017), Tourism Tasmania Annual Report 2016-2017, accessible at <https://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/59833/TTAS-Annual-Report-2016-17.pdf>.
The Saffire Resort, the Museum of Old and New Art and the development of new trails including a new iconic wilderness walk on the Tasman Peninsula, lend weight to the sector’s growth prospects.5
The Chinese Tourism Industry The booming Chinese tourism industry is the fastest growing source of travellers, due to a combination of factors such as urbanisation, the growth of the middle class and their level of disposable income, and a relaxation on foreign travel. The Asian market saw strong growth in general, with increased visitors from India, Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, and Malaysia visitors.
Both Chinese visitor numbers and trip spend increased in Australia in 2017 by 10% to 1.2 million and $9.8 billion respectively6; 31,400 Chinese visitors came to Tasmania (2.7% of all Chinese visitors in Australia); this is a 30% increase from 2016 figures7. This is reflected in the growing Chinese visitor market for Tasmania, which has grown at an annual rate of 29% over the past 5 years, with 46% of this figure being holidaymakers8. The key decision factors for holidays in Tasmania were a safe and secure destination, world class beauty and natural environments, and good food, local cuisine, and produce. World class coastlines, beaches, and marine life and interesting attractions to visit also rated highly.
The largest group of visitors from China are above the age of 50, with a secondary but growing market in the 25-29 young couples’ group. The most popular regions were Hobart and the South of Tasmania, followed by Launceston, Tamar and the North, and the East Coast (20%)9. Tourism Research Australia (TRA) forecast a national growth in 2018-2019 in inbound Chinese visitors to increase by 26.4%, and visitor nights in Tasmania specifically to be 3.0%10.
There are several developments progressing in Tasmania that improve access to the State from China, enabling opportunities for further expansion of the Chinese tourist market in Tasmania, including the attraction of golfers.
The Federal Government grant deed to extend Hobart’s runway to 2,750 metres now enables the Tasmanian Government and Hobart International Airport to pursue direct air access with international airlines based in key visitor markets. The Hobart Airport runway extension project remains on track for completion in March 201811.
Tourism Tasmania has partnered with Chinese East Coast distributors (including Shanghai Eastern Air International Travel Service, the CITS Group Shanghai, VTour and online with Tunlu) to promote Tasmania through the Qantas-China Eastern codeshare network. The code- sharing deal was authorised by the ACCC in 2015 for the five-year period of 2015-2020, and along with increased frequencies will mean direct China-Hobart flights (from Shanghai Pudong International Airport)12. This venture has the potential to significantly facilitate the development of this proposal. Tourism Tasmania additionally led a pan-Asian tourism mission accompanied by 14 Tasmanian operators visiting Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and China, and engaged with more than 150 travel agents and product managers to raise destination awareness.
5 RDA (2015), Tasmania Regional Plan. 6Austrade (2017), International Visitors to Australia), accessible at <https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/250/IVS_one_pager_June2017.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y>. 7 Tourism Tasmanian (2017), Tasmanian Tourism Snapshot accessible at <https://tourismtasmania.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/53756/snapshot-jun17.pdf>. 8 Tourism Tasmania (2017), Chinese Visitor Snapshot, accessible at <https://tourismtasmania.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/39251/chinese-snapshot.pdf>. 9 Ibid. 10 Tourism Research Australia (2017), Tourism Forecasts, accessible at <https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/257/Tourism%20Forecasts.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y>. 11 Tourism Tasmania (2017), Annual Report 2016-2017, accessible at <https://www.tourismtasmania.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/59833/TTAS-Annual-Report-2016-17.pdf>. 12ACCC (2015), ACCC Authorises Qantas/China Eastern Coordination Agreement, accessible at <https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-authorises-qantas-china-eastern-coordination-agreement>.
1.3 Golf Tourism in Tasmania and Australia Australia is internationally recognised as a mature golf market with a wide array of golf courses available. Australia’s top four public golf courses are all located in Tasmania. The courses are comprised of two world class golf courses on King Island (Cape Wickham and Ocean Dunes), and two courses at Barnbougle and Bridport in north- eastern Tasmania13. This is supported by Tasmania’s climate and landscape, which ensures that golf is a year-round sport, and allows for more diverse and challenging golf courses. For example, the Barnbougle Dunes and Lost Farm courses feature dramatic dunes in ‘true links-course style’. In 2015, over 200 of the world’s leading golf travel journalists named Tasmania the ‘undiscovered golf destination of the year14.’
Tasmania’s golf tourism sector is growing rapidly as the leading state for luring interstate and international golfers, with at least five world-class golf courses currently being developed, including in Derwent Estuary region, Claremont, Barilla Bay, and St Helens and Orford on the east coast. This has been largely fuelled by demand from golfers from Melbourne and Sydney seeking challenging new coastal courses; Tourism Tasmania found in 2017 that golf tourism grew more than 19 per cent in the year to March, with 28,600 visitors15.
A 2014 report by Australian Golf Industry Council (AGIC) found that 1.575 million golf trips were taken in Australia in 2013, with Tasmania identified as the leading Australian state in terms of luring visitors for the purpose of golf tourism. The largest gain in visitor frequentation was recorded by Northern Tasmania, increasing ten places to be the 4th most frequently visited golf destination in Australia16. The number of overnight trips and visitor nights have increased by 1% and 2% respectively, however the length of stay has decreased by 5%. The visitor spending per night increased by 6% over 2008-201317. International visitation has increased, with an annual 5% growth rate achieved since 2011. Average spending levels are also trending upward, growing by an average of 5% per year18.
Private golf club memberships are in the decline, however the growth in golf tourism shows an increasing preference to eschew expensive club memberships, and instead spending on travelling to different golf courses in friendship or family groups. The two most important features sought by golf tourists are the ability to play premium courses, and course variety; this is reflected in the operating nature of Tasmanian golf courses, which are destination oriented, pay-for play, and public access.
The Chinese tourist market is rapidly growing, replacing Japan and Korea in the top 5 inbound golf markets. Demand from Chinese tourists grew by 73% from 2008-2013. In 2013, the Chinese market accounted for 9% of total golf visitor nights, however accounted for 17% of total golf visitor spending19. Out of the top 5 inbound golf markets (United Kingdom, New
13 Gold Digest (2016), World’s 100 Greatest Gold Courses, accessible at <https://www.golfdigest.com/story/worlds-100- greatest-golf-courses-2016-ranking>. 14 IAGTO (2015), The World’s Undiscovered Golf Destination of the Year is…Tasmania, accessible at <http://www.iagto.com/pressrelease/details/68caaa32-f032-48a4-a6fe-99ca67386763>. 15 The Australian (2016), Tasmania Tees off as the Next Big Golf Destination, accessible at <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/tasmania-tees-off-as-the-next-big-golf-destination/news- story/317b2f3a984c9fbe16b5858ca0148b98>. 16 Australian Golf Industry Council (2014), The Value of Golf Tourism to Australia, accessible at http://golfnetworkadmin.gamznhosting.com/site/_content/document/00021963-source.pdf>. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19Australian Golf Industry Council (2014), The Value of Golf Tourism Australia, accessible at <http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00021963-source.pdf>.
GOLF TOURISM
Golf tourism is defined as a holiday centred around the sport. The International Association of Golfing Tour Operators (IAGTO) estimates the international golf tourism market to be worth US$17 billion, with 5-10% of players taking overseas trips every year for the sole purpose of playing golf. The Asian, Middle Eastern, and Mexican markets are growing markets.
Zealand, China, Other Europe, and USA), Chinese tourists spend the highest average amount; average spend of Chinese tourists is almost double that of other international tourists.
1.4 COVID travel restrictions, economic recovery and the future of tourism
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has drastically impacted on travel behaviour and the tourism market in general. As borders are slowly opening, future localised or broader lockdowns may occur and continue to impact travel and tourism patterns.
This section describes the impacts the pandemic has had on travel and tourism, and lays out the likely trajectories for tourism development over the next few years.
International travel Overseas arrivals and departures into both Australia and Tasmania had been increasing steadily over the past five years before the COVID19 pandemic. As shown in the figure below (Figure 2), monthly arrivals to and departures from Australia increased from around 1.5 million in early 2015 to nearly 2.3 million by January 2020.
The onset of the pandemic resulted in border closures for nearly all travellers throughout Australia from March 2020 onwards. This has meant that international travel was greatly constrained, with only some returning Australian citizens and travellers with exceptional circumstances over the past two years.
FIGURE 1: MONTHLY INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS, ALL AUSTRALIA, 2015 TO 2021
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3401.0 Overseas Arrivals and Departures, August 2021
The similar trend is present when looking at international travel to and from Tasmania (Figure 3). However, both international arrivals and departures into Tasmania were growing more sharply than the national average for the state. Between 2015 and 2019, total calendar year arrivals into Tasmania increased by 55.6%. By comparison, total calendar year arrivals into Australia over the same period only increased by 23.0%20. Given that the border closures were enforced on the entire nation, Tasmania too has experienced limited international arrivals and departures since March 2020.
20 ABS 3401.0 Overseas Arrivals and Departures August 2021, Total Arrivals and Total Departures – State of Residence/Stay
FIGURE 2: MONTHLY INTERNATIONAL DEPARTURES AND ARRIVALS, TASMANIA, 2015 TO 2021
Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3401.0 Overseas Arrivals and Departures, August 2021
Domestic travel Travel into Tasmania from other states has followed a similar trajectory to overseas travel. Strong growth was experienced over the past decade, as is shown in the figure below (Figure 4). This chart shows total visitors to the state. Between 2011 and 2019, annual visitation increased by nearly 45 per cent, from 774,600 to 1,121,100 visitors.
Again, COVID related lockdowns and border closures between states over the past two years have impacted interstate visitation, although not to the same extent as with international travellers. As a result, domestic visitation decreased by nearly 25 per cent in 2020 and by a further 33 per cent in 2021. Visitation in 2021 was 49 per cent below 2019 levels. Despite this, visitation from states without pandemic breakouts remained strong, with 571,200 Australians still travelling to the state in the 2020-21 financial year.
FIGURE 3: TOTAL ANNUAL INTERSTATE VISITORS TO TASMANIA, FINANCIAL YEARS 2011 TO 2021
Source: Tourism Tasmania, Tourism Snapshot, Year Ending June 2012 to 2021
Figure 5 below shows the breakdown of interstate visitation to Tasmania by state of origin. Visitation from Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland grew strongly between 2012 to 2019. Visitation from all states fell in 2020 due to pandemic related border restrictions, with a slight bounce in 2021 from all states except the ACT as periods of lifted restrictions were enjoyed. The distribution of
FIGURE 4: ANNUAL INTERSTATE VISITORS TO TASMANIA BY ORIGIN, FINANCIAL YEARS 2011 TO 2021
Source: Tourism Tasmania, Tourism Snapshot, Year Ending June 2012 to 2021
The effects of this downturn in visitation between 2020 and 2021 is also illustrated in Figure 6. Total visitor expenditure in Tasmania decreased by 20.1% in 2020 and by

Date post:	26-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times