TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

PAGE 1

REPORT NUMBER: MD&E 1
SUBJECT: Rail Trail Public Comments (26.07.02)
REPORT AUTHOR: Brad Beed
RESPONSIBLE MANAGER: Paul Mullins
PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council of the public comments
received regarding the Tumut to Batlow Rail Trail
Feasibility Study.

KEY ISSUES

1. Rail Trail Feasibility Study.
2. Consideration of public comments received regarding the Feasibility Study.
BUDGET IMPACTS
To Date:
· $5,000 towards Feasibility Study.
· Staff time in attending Riverina Highlands Rail Trail Committee meetings.
Future:
· Staff time in attending Riverina Highlands Rail Trail Committee meetings.
· Undefined.

SOCIAL IMPACTS

Possible Negative Social Impacts Possible Positive Social Impacts
Disruption to farm practises Significant increase in tourism
Invasion of privacy to landowners Significant increase to local economy
Injury to users and/or livestock Additional jobs created
Landowners concern of theft, vandalism
and arson
Promotes and provides a healthy lifestyle
Insurance and liability Access for emergency vehicles

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Possible Negative Environmental
Impacts
Possible Positive Environmental
Impacts
Increased rubbish Development of Fire Management Plan
Spread of noxious weeds Noxious weed control through
management of public corridor
MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACTS
Action 3.1.1.7.13: Support proposed rail trail between Tumut and Batlow.

INTRODUCTION

In 2004 the Riverina Highlands Rail Trails Committee was formed, holding several
committee meetings as well as public meetings to discuss a proposed rail trail.
TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006

• MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS
  PAGE 2
  In early 2005 the Committee was formalised as a subcommittee
  of the Riverina Regional Development Board with its own charter to “… plan, develop and implement
  rail trails on disused railway corridors between Tumut and Batlow and Wagga Wagga
  and Tumbarumba.”
  In Early 2006 the Committee engaged a consultant to undertake a Feasibility Study
  with the following brief:

1. To provide a broad outline of the proposed Tumut to Batlow & Wagga Wagga to
Tumbarumba Rail Trails as well as details and discussion of local and regional
features supporting its development.
2. To present an economic evaluation of the project including the expected benefits
and costs associated with the complete rail trail development.
3. To identify and discuss the main issues, concerning the proposed development
and give recommendations concerning the subsequent approval and
implementation process.

At the start of June 2006 the consultants presented the Feasibility Study to the
Committee. Council received the study and subsequently invited public comment
during the months of July to mid August.

BACKGROUND
Council received 30 submissions. 10 were objections and 20 were in favour of the
proposal. It should also be noted that the Sports Committee resolved to endorse the
proposal and one objection from the Gilmore Progress Association included a petition
with 30 signatures, many of whom separately wrote to Council stating their
objections.
Below is a table outlining the main issues raised by the submissions, as well as
several letters to the editor of the Tumut and Adelong Times. It should be noted that
many of these issues are addressed in the Study on pages 8089.
No. Received issues /comments
Remarks on issues / comments

1.  Council or Riverina Regional Development Board has not proved that land is public and
hence owned by all NSW residents.
 The railway from Mt Horeb to Gilmore and Tumut was opened in 1903 and extended to Batlow in 1923 (under the
Gilmore to Batlow Railway Act #20 of 1919). The passing of this act of Parliament brought the rail corridor land into
public ownership – a situation that remains the case today.
It should be noted the Gilmore Progress Association’s letter
acknowledged the public ownership of the railway corridor.
2. No compensation to landowners when line was constructed.
 There is little evidence available to support or disclaim this.
Very few current landowners were alive when the track was
constructed. It is known that in the 1920’s farmers encouraged railways to pass close or through their land as
it meant less distance to travel to load livestock onto transportation to send to market, and hence reduced costs.
3. Provide access for theft, vandalism and arson.

 The trail will provide formal public access past private
property similar to adjoining roads, however the trail is not
accessible to vehicles. The majority of users based on
similar facilities are middle aged or families mainly on push
bikes, the presence of which on the trails will actually
discourage potential criminal behaviour. The High Country
Rail Trail located in Beechworth has had no occurrence of
arson since its opening 5 years ago.

 

TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

PAGE 3

4. Concern of public safety from livestock.
Injury to livestock due to users
 Unfenced sections of trail where potentially dangerous livestock are located could pose safety risks to users and
visa versa. Fencing of the trail as suggested in the study would negate this issue. Vehicular traffic on roads adjacent
to paddocks would potentially cause more distress tolivestock than cyclists or walkers.
5. Land value decreases.
 Discussions with other Rail Trails around Australia have
shown either no variation or an increase in value. Its been
noted for the High Country Rail Trail in Victoria many Real
Estates include the Rail Trail as part of their advertising.
6. Rubbish.
  This is a concern however more likely around rest areas
where users stop to eat, drink etc, in which case bins would
be located at these stops.
7. Existing walking trails could be modified to take cyclists
 Rail Trails are ideal for cyclists and impaired walkers due to
there constant gentle gradient. Few other existing walking
tracks can provide this.
8. Under estimated length and cost of fencing.
  Entire line should be fenced, The study states “As this is essentially a ‘feasibility study’
report, and not a fullscale trail development plan, the costs of construction of the trails… are estimates only. In the next
phase of the study… the detailed design development would define more accurately the costs for each trail
construction.
… some segments of the former railway corridors will
require fencing along both sides of the corridor (to satisfy
adjoining landowners who require it), while in other
segments of the corridors little or no fencing will be
required, as new fences have already been installed by
neighbouring farmers or adjoining landowners do not
require fencing (due to interference with farming practices).”
(page 108)

9. Invasion of privacy – Urban backyards are not open to the public why should paddocks.
 Due to the close proximity of several houses to the rail corridor privacy will be an issue. However the corridor has been a public rail corridor since 1923 and many of those
houses were constructed after 1923. As proposed in the study fencing, screen planting, moving the trail to the side
of the 20m wide corridor and ‘land swaps’ are all possible
solutions. There is also a possibility that some of these
houses encroach on the designated 20 metre wide corridor.
Urban backyards usually do not have a 20 metre wide
railway corridor passing through them.

10. Threat to farmers livelihood
 It is acknowledged that there will be disruptions to existing
farm practises which could potentially incur additional costs
to the farmer. However as stated many times in the study
the next stage of the process involves one on one
consultation to develop strategies to minimise these
potential disruptions. It should be noted that many of these
farming practises have been developed to include use of
the public rail corridor.

11. Insurance premiums will increase
 Communications with other Rail Trails around Australia
show this has not occurred. Similar to the existing
Riverwalk which passes through many private properties
Council’s insurer has stated in writing that Council’s policy
covers landowners. Whoever is the owner/operator of the
rail trail would require similar insurance.

12. Chemical usage –public safety and disruption to farm practises
 The Pesticides Act 1999 prohibits the spraying of pesticides
from aircraft within 150 metres of a residence, school or
other specified public place. Should the trail proceed the
land is likely to be controlled by the Crown and as such this
Act will become pertinent.

TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006
MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS
PAGE 4

13. Study was biased – Consultants are advocates for Rail Trails
 The consultants were selected from many applicants due to
their experience and expertise with rail trail feasibility
studies. Recently the consultants undertook a similar
feasibility study which recommended not proceeding. The
study states “This is not to say that the concerns raised by
landowners in this case are not worthy of attention. In fact,
quite the opposite is true. Many of these concerns are
legitimate and warrant careful consideration.”

14. At the initial public meeting trail proponents advised that the proposal would not go ahead without community
support
 This statement still holds true. Currently 3040 residents oppose the trail mainly Gilmore residents. This number is a
fraction of the Tumut Shire’s community of 12,000. It should
be noted comments received by supporters out numbered
objectors 2 to 1.

15. Ratepayers will cover construction costs and rates will go up
 This is currently not a Council project nor envisaged to be
and as such rate payers will not incur construction costs.
The Rail Trail Committee has been advised by several state
ministers of many government funding opportunities
available. The study states “operations could be initially
funded through the proceeds of the sale of the rail
infrastructure recovered (rails, timber etc). Such proceeds
could also be used to construct the rail trails… ”

16. Original letter from Gilmore Progress Association opposing project was not mentioned in study
 This is true, however all the issues raised in the original
letter were raised at the public meeting held in Tumut in
March 2006 and are listed on pages 5053, 5556 and 8089 of the study. The consultants also met onsite
with the Gilmore Progress Association President and many Gilmore
residents at which these issues were also discussed and
have been included in the study.

17. Parts of the Feasibility study are insulting, arrogant and reflect lack of respect
 These feelings are possibly due to difference of opinion.
The study states “This is not to say that the concerns raised
by landowners in this case are not worthy of attention. In
fact, quite the opposite is true. Many of these concerns are
legitimate and warrant careful consideration.”

18. Paddock split in two stock isolated from water, feed and shelter
This will occur for many landowners.
  The unfenced railway
corridor has laid dormant for decades and as such has
ceased to exist in the minds and practises of many farmers.
No fencing, gates, new infrastructure, “land swaps” are all
possible solutions to be discussed during one on one
consultation prior to construction.

19. Council will have to fund ongoing maintenance.
 It is unclear at this time how ongoing maintenance will be
funded. It is expected that Council will be involved in some
capacity albeit as a committee member. Other trails around
Australia are maintained and funded by the state
government, local businesses and ‘Friends of Groups’

20. Insufficient weighting of concerns in the study
 Only 10 pages of the 200 page study addressed concerns which equates to 5%
Actual 8 pages of concerns from public meetings, 7 pages
of concerns from informal meetings, 12 pages of concerns
& possible solutions, 2 pages of costs to landowners, 2
pages of attendees at public meetings = 31 pages of a total
of 184 = 16.85%

21. No benefits to landowners
 There are few direct benefits to landowners as they
currently stand other than possible health benefits,
emergency access and reduced costs associated with
management of the public land. However landowners can
diversify and earn additional income through bed &
breakfast operations, produce stalls etc.
TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS
PAGE 5

22. Money should be spent on reopening the line from Tumut to
Cootamundra or a new hospital.
 Funding for the project is anticipated to come from either:
the state government which has already set aside funding
for recreational purposes, not health; or through the sale of
the existing infrastructure which based on the estimated
amount still in place at current market rates would be
approx. $4 million or from federal funding programs.

23. Great benefit to the community
 Potentially the trail will generate a minimum of $1 million in
tourism to the Riverina, provide 13 additional jobs and
numerous new business opportunities.

24. Health benefits fight obesity
 A healthier community have reduced health problems and
although unquantifiable reduce the economic burden on
society related to health.

25. Valuable teaching /school resource
 Physical Education, Health, Science, Geography are just
some of the subjects which could benefit from the trail.

26. Public asset
 As previously stated the corridor through an act of
parliament was brought into public ownership in 1923. It
should be noted that the railway corridor is 20 metres wide.
Most areas that are fenced encroach significantly upon this
public corridor meaning landowners are actively using land
not owned by them. This is also the case for landowners
where fencing is non existent.

27. Attract new residents by providing enhanced lifestyle skilled workers
 Recreational assets are seen as a benefit to potential new
residents.

28. Lack of current cycling facilities
 There are currently very few “traffic free” cycle facilities in
the Riverina.

29. Australian Bureau of Statistics places cycling 7th in adult participation in selected Sport and Activities (2002)
 This fact would surprise many as to the popularity of
cycling. The recent NSW BigRide further shows the
popularity of cycling and potential economic ‘spin offs’.

30. Landowners issues similar to those faced next to roads or neighbouring boundaries
 Many of the concerns raised above have been dealt with in
the past by landowners adjoining roads. Similar strategies
could be used.

31. Link to wetlands and Riverwalk
 A link to these will assist in inviting tourists into the town
and showing off 2 great Shire assets.

32. As first in NSW, opportunity to gain government funding
 The Rail Trail Committee’s and RRDB’s discussions with
state ministers have indicated great support for the project
and possible funding due impart to it potentially being the
first of its type in NSW.
33. Boost for Batlow and local economy
 Batlow has been struggling for many years and the trail will
provide significant tourism business potential.

34. Aid in upgrading entrances to Tumut
 The disused Rail Yards on the Snowy Mountains Hwy will
potentially be the start/end point of the trail. This would
significantly improve the current unattractive, rundown site.

COMMENTS
The benefits of the proposal far out weigh the negatives, and as the public comments
show the supporters out number the objectors. The study projects, based on
statistics from a number of existing facilities, significant tourism and economic
potential for the region. Conservative estimates show a $1 million tourism market for
TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006
MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

PAGE 6
the region, 13 new jobs as well as health benefits for locals, all as a direct result of
the trail.
As the study states the concerns and issues raised by the landowners should not be
dismissed. Instead through oneonone
consultation during the next stage of
development all the concerns and issues can be worked through to achieve a
practical outcome. This belief is echoed by the author as well as the Riverina
Highlands Rail Trail Committee and Riverina Regional Development Board. No
issues or concerns raised to date by landowners adjoining the proposed rail trail are
so insurmountable as not to proceed with the proposal.
There are many possible solutions to all the concerns raised. One possible solution
too many problems which has yet to be explored in detail is a ‘land swap’. Should the
rail corridor be located close to a residence and fencing and/or screening is
insufficient to negate concerns a swap of a similar sized parcel of private land can be
made for the public rail corridor.
It must be remembered that the document produced was merely a Feasibility Study
to determine whether to proceed based on the “pro’s and con’s”. Accurate costings,
designs, solutions to landowners concerns etc form part of the next stage of the
process. Funding will also be investigated further. Through discussions with state
government Minister there is significant potential to gain government funding to
complete the entire project. There is also potential through the sale of the existing rail
infrastructure to invest the proceeds (estimated at current market rates of approx.
$5m) which would then fund the employment of a trail manager as well as
maintenance costs, negating any further financial burden.
On the 9 August 2006 the Tumbarumba Times published a front page article titled
“Council backs rail trail project”. The articles explains the Tumbarumba Council view
the project as an “exciting initiative that would have significant economic and tourism
benefits for our community.” Four Councillors also expressed interest in joining the
management committee. Furthermore Tumbarumba Council resolved to “support the
development, stopping short of endorsing it, for fear council would then be committed
to unspecified financial support.” (refer attached)
As clearly shown through the number of comments received there is much interest in
the community. It would therefore be recommended, should the proposal proceed,
that a delegation be formed to visit the High Country Rail Trail in Wodonga, Victoria.
This is a new Rail Trail only 5 years old and similar in length to the proposed Tumut
to Batlow trail. The delegation would consist of Councillor’s, Council staff,
landowners, objectors and supporters. The delegations could experience first hand
the rail trail and discuss issues with people directly affected by the trail, including
adjoining landowners.

TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006
MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS

PAGE 7
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council support the further detailed investigation of Riverina Highlands
Rail Trails Committee with its proposal for a rail trail from Batlow to Tumut
and Wagga Wagga to Tumbarumba.
2. That Council note the concerns of local residence and take all steps to
assist in overcoming these concerns during the implementation stage
through continued involvement with the Riverina Highlands Rail Trails
Committee.
3. That Council investigate sending a delegation consisting of Councillors,
staff, landowners, objectors and supporters to the High Country Rail Trail in
Wodonga, Victoria.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Riverina Highlands Rail Trails Feasibility Study – Recommendations
2. Tumbarumba Times – article 9 August 2006

*********************************
COUNCIL RESOLUTION
427 RESOLVED that:
1. Council support the further detailed investigation of Riverina Highlands Rail
Trails Committee with its proposal for a rail trail from Batlow to Tumut and
Wagga Wagga to Tumbarumba.
2. Council convey the concerns of local residents to the Rail Trail proponents
and ensure items four, nine, twelve and eighteen of the report are
considered and take all steps to assist in overcoming these concerns during
the implementation stage through continued involvement with the Riverina
Highlands Rail Trails Committee.
Cr A McKenzie/Cr B Dumbrell
TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006

MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS
PAGE 8
Riverina Highlands Rail Trails Feasibility Study Recommendations
It is recommended that the Riverina Regional Development Board:
1. Resolve to endorse the Riverina Highlands Rail Trails Feasibility Study and seek
to implement recommendations contained therein.
2. Make this feasibility report available for public scrutiny, and invite submissions
from the community on the findings and proposals of this study.
3. Refer this feasibility report to the City of Wagga Wagga, the Tumut Shire
Council, the Tumbarumba Shire Council and the Greater Hume Council for
consideration and comment, and request that each local government make
budget allocations for the ongoing development of the trails.
4. Refer this feasibility report to the Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd for
consideration and comment.
5. Refer this feasibility report to State Forests for consideration and comment.
6. Refer this feasibility report to the Department of Lands for consideration and
comment.
7. Refer this feasibility report to the NSW Rural Fire Service (Riverina Zone) for
consideration and comment.
8. Refer this feasibility report to the Base Commander of the RAAF base at Wagga
Wagga with a request for comment, together with a letter formally seeking
assistance from the RAAF, via its Defence Assistance to the Civil Community
program, towards the implementation of the Wagga Wagga to Equex and Equex
to Forest Hill sections of the proposed trail.
9. Make arrangements for the cessation of leases along the railway corridors, with
the prospect that leases of land (‘surplus’ to the requirements of the railtrails
along each corridor) may be available after construction of the trails.
10. Make an annual budget allocation to commence preparation of the railtrail
development plan.
11. Immediately seek funds from other sources and funding programs for the
development of the railtrail
– and in particularly the Australian Tourism
Development Program (which closes on June 28th).
12. Make arrangements for representatives of the Council, the Committee of
Management and interested landowners to make a bus trip to the LilydaleWarburton
Rail Trail to investigate first hand the innovative design solutions used
along the trail and to speak with adjoining landowners and the Committee of
Management of that trail.
13. Purchase multiple copies of the “Rail Trail Videos” DVD from RailTrails Australia,
and make these available to members of the public for viewing, as it contains
compelling stories and interviews with landowners adjoining the LilydaleWarburton
Rail Trail, and a New Zealand railtrail.
14. The Committee of Management (when formed), in partnership with the Councils,
make approaches to major corporate entities in the region, including Visy, Carter
Holt Harvey, Weyerhaeuser Australia Pty Ltd, the Hyne Mill, and others
regarding sponsorship of the project.
TUESDAY, 22 AUGUST, 2006
MANAGER DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT REPORTS
PAGE 9