Springbrook Cableway Technical Note - Social

SPRINGBROOK CABLEWAY Social Assessment Technical Paper

Prepared for

CITY OF GOLD COAST COUNCIL 01 September 2020

URBIS STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS REPORT WERE:

Director Matthew Schneider Associate Director Kylie Rolley-Cervenjak Senior Consultant Monique Fenn Consultant Claudia Pleger Project Code P0022215 Report Number Final Report (following Council review)

All information supplied to Urbis in order to conduct this research has been treated in the strictest confidence. It shall only be used in this context and shall not be made available to third parties without client authorisation. Confidential information has been stored securely and data provided by respondents, as well as their identity, has been treated in the strictest confidence and all assurance given to respondents have been and shall be fulfilled. © Urbis Pty Ltd 50 105 256 228 All Rights Reserved. No material may be reproduced without prior permission. You must read the important disclaimer appearing within the body of this report. urbis.com.au

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW)

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

2. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ................................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Local Catchment .................................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Population Projections ......................................................................................................... 3 2.3. Age and Gender Profiles ..................................................................................................... 4 2.4. Key Demographic Characteristics ....................................................................................... 5 2.5. Demographic Summary ....................................................................................................... 8

3. PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES ......................................................................................... 9 3.1. Natural Environment ............................................................................................................ 9 3.2. Increased Tourism .............................................................................................................10 3.3. Equity and Political Considerations ...................................................................................10 3.4. Amenity Considerations .....................................................................................................11

4. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................12 4.1. Social Opportunities and Impacts ......................................................................................12 4.2. Social Licence to Operate ..................................................................................................13

5. KEY FINDINGS .................................................................................................................................15 5.1. Opportunities and Impacts .................................................................................................15 5.2. Towards an Assessment Framework ................................................................................23

Disclaimer ........................................................................................................................................................24

Appendix A Demographic Data

FIGURES Figure 1: Local Catchment Boundary ............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Projected Population - Local Catchment ............................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Age and Gender Profile 2018 - Local Catchment ............................................................................... 4 Figure 4 Age and Gender Profile 2018 - Gold Coast LGA ............................................................................... 4 Figure 5 - Household Composition Local Catchment vs Gold Coast LGA ....................................................... 6 Figure 6 - Family Composition Local Catchment Vs Gold Coast LGA ............................................................. 6 Figure 7: MWCC Voluntarily Adopted Community Parameters...................................................................... 14 TABLES Table 1 – Demographic Snapshot ..................................................................................................................... 7 Table 2: Overview of Case Studies ................................................................................................................. 12 Table 3: Potential Social Opportunities and Impacts ...................................................................................... 16 Table 4: Potential Social Opportunities and Impacts by Affected and Interested Stakeholders ..................... 22

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) INTRODUCTION 1

1. INTRODUCTION This technical paper examines the potential social opportunities and impacts associated with any future proposal for a cableway to be established within the Springbrook area of the Gold Coast hinterland. The report forms part of a suite of technical papers being prepared for the City of Gold Coast Council as part of an independent pre-feasibility assessment led by Urbis.

As the assessment contained in this paper is not specific to any one cableway proposal, it draws on the following key information sources:

• Section 2 - The demographic characteristics of the local catchment area, including the key townships of Neranwood and Springbrook and comparisons to the Gold Coast Local Government Area and the South East Queensland region.

• Section 3 - Engagement outcomes associated with previous proposals for a cableway at Springbrook and more recent social media commentary on the topic.

• Section 4 - Analysis of the social opportunities and impacts identified through assessment of other cableway projects elsewhere in Australia.

The analysis is synthesised at Section 5 of the report into key opportunities and impacts any cableway proposal is likely to present, along with a suite of considerations to take forward into a future assessment framework.

2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE URBIS

20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW)

2. DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 2.1. LOCAL CATCHMENT It is assumed that the cableway would commence from a location within the vicinity of Neranwood and continue along a route towards Springbrook. It is unconfirmed where passengers would embark and disembark, including whether there would be a station at Springbrook. It is presumed that some amenities would be provided at the stations, which (based on other similar developments) could include a visitor information centre, servicing infrastructure, public amenities, café, seating, security and waste management facilities.

For the purpose of this demographic analysis, the local catchment area is taken to be the SA21 areas within which the cableway route would be situated. This takes in the two SAs of Guanaba – Springbrook and Mudgeeraba – Bonogin. The combined local catchment area is shown in Figure 1 below. Figure 1: Local Catchment Boundary

1 SA2 is an ABS census boundary and– Statistical Area 2.

Neranwood

Springbrook

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE 3

2.2. POPULATION PROJECTIONS Based on current population projections, the local catchment is forecast to see slow, but steady population growth over the coming years. Over the past 10 years to 2019, an additional 2,500 persons have relocated to the area, which represents an average annual growth rate of 1.1%. This same growth rate is forecast for the next decade to 2029. Whilst this rate of growth is slow, it does result in an additional 5,100 residents over the next two decades to 2039 (in addition to the 24,059 residents in the area in 2019). This equates to approximately 260 new residents each year.

Figure 2 Projected Population - Local Catchment



2.3. AGE AND GENDER PROFILES The age profile for the local catchment is notably different to that of the surrounding City of Gold Coast Local Government Area, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 below. Some of the key observations of the 2016 census data are:

• There was a high proportion of children aged 5 to 19 years and adults aged 35-49 years in the local catchment, which suggests a dominance of families with older children in the area.

• There was a distinct lack of young adults aged from 20 to 34 years. This may be an indication that younger adults are leaving the areas due to their education or employment movements.

• Conversely, the City of Gold Coast LGA had a much more even distribution across the age cohorts compared to the local catchment. There was a slightly higher proportion of persons aged 20-34 years, indicating that there may be migration from the local catchment to elsewhere within the City of Gold Coast LGA.

Figure 3 Age and Gender Profile 2018 - Local Catchment

Figure 4 Age and Gender Profile 2018 - Gold Coast LGA


2.4. KEY DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS The following provides an overview of key demographic characteristics for the local catchment area and the townships of Neranwood and Springbrook. The relevant census data is summarised at Table 1 and in more detail at Appendix A.

Local Catchment Area

• Population o At 2019, the Estimated Resident Population of the local catchment was 24,059 people. The

majority of these residents lived outside the townships of Springbrook and Narenwood, which had a combined population of 700 people.

o Within the local catchment, 1.7% of people identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, which is the same proportion as the Gold Coast LGA and slightly lower that SEQ (at 2.0%).

o The median age of residents of the local catchment was 41 years, which is higher than the median age for the Gold Coast LGA at 38 years.

• Dwelling Types o The local catchment is characterised by single level, detached homes, consistent with a

more regional lifestyle and setting. • Household and Family Type

o Of all households in the local catchment area, 92.4% were family households, which is significantly higher than the comparable rate for the Gold Coast LGA (85.6%).

o Of all families, the dominant family type was couples with children under 15 years (34.7% compared with 29.2% for the Gold Coast LGA). This is different to the dominant family type in the Gold LGA where the proportion of couple families with no children was dominant.

• Household Income o The average annual household income within the local catchment area was $81,640. This

compares with $73,008 for the Gold Coast LGA. • Housing Tenure

o The majority of households were occupied by home owners, with 78.2% of households either owning their home outright or purchasing the property.

• Migration o With a dominance of family households, there is typically less migration. Over the five years

to 2016, 57.1% of residents remained in the same address, which is a higher rate that for Gold Coast LGA (where 47% remained in the same address).

• Employment o The employment rate for the local catchment area was higher than the Gold Coast LGA (at

62.1% compared with 57.3%). o Despite being approximately 40km from key commercial hubs such as the Southport CBD,

there was a higher proportion of managers and professionals in comparison to the Gold Coast LGA (32.5% compared with 30.7%). With a higher proportion of white-collar workers, there was also a higher proportion of households earning more than $156,000 annually (17% in comparison to Gold Coast LGA at 14%). Furthermore, the unemployment for the area (3.8%) is much lower in comparison to the Gold Coast LGA (4.3%).

o The data suggests that residents are commuting for employment (either Southport or Brisbane) or some may be working from home.



Figure 5 - Household Composition Local Catchment vs Gold Coast LGA

Figure 6 - Family Composition Local Catchment Vs Gold Coast LGA

Communities of Springbrook and Narenwood

• Both Springbrook and Narenwood have small residential communities at 659 residents and 67 residents respectively.

• More persons identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander in Springbrook (2.0%) than Narenwood (0%).

• The median age was the same for both communities at 47 years. This was significantly higher than the local catchment area and the Gold Coast LGA (41 years and 38 years respectively) and suggests the communities may attract retirees.

• Both communities were dominated by family households (82% for Springbrook and 83.6% for Narenwood), all of whom lived within a detached dwelling. The family compositions indicate there were higher proportions of couple families with no children under 15.

• There was a higher proportion of persons not in the labour force (37.6% for Springbrook and 37.1% for Narenwood), which combined with the higher proportions of couples with older children and the older median age, may reflect a ‘treechange’ demographic of older retirees moving for lifestyle reasons and possibly families who have remained in the community for a long period of time.


Table 1 – Demographic Snapshot

Springbrook NarenwoodCombined Local

CatchmentGold Coast LGA SEQ

Total Population (2019 ERP) 659 67 24,059 620,518 3,554,819

ASTI Population 2.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.7% 2.0%Median Age 47 47 41 38 37

Average Household Income $59,124 $81,224 $81,640 $73,008 $70,332

Household Composition (Persons)Family Household 82.0% 83.6% 92.4% 85.6% 72.5%

Group Household 3.8% 9.1% 2.3% 5.1% 5.2%

Lone Household 14.2% 7.3% 5.3% 9.3% 22.3%

Family Composition (Families)Couple family with no children 33.5% 44.4% 34.0% 39.5% 38.9%

Couple family with children under 15 20.5% 16.7% 34.7% 29.2%

Couple family with no children under 15 28.0% 38.9% 15.5% 12.7%

One parent family with children under 15 7.9% 0.0% 8.0% 8.9%

One parent family with no children under 15 8.8% 0.0% 6.9% 8.4%

Other 1.3% 0.0% 0.9% 1.4%

Labour Force (Persons)Employed 51.3% 50.8% 62.1% 57.3% 94.0%

Unemployed 6.6% 6.6% 3.8% 4.3% 6.0%

Not in Labour Force 37.6% 36.1% 28.0% 30.6%

Not Stated 4.6% 6.6% 6.0% 7.8%

Housing Tenure (Dwellings)Owner 37.4% 50.0% 27.8% 27.2% 28.3%

Purchaser 42.3% 30.0% 50.4% 34.9% 36.3%

Renter 20.4% 20.0% 21.8% 37.9% 35.4%

Dwelling Structure (Dwellings)Separate House 100.0% 100.0% 89.2% 58.5% 73.4%

Semi-detached 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 20.7% 12.2%

Flat, Unit or apartment 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 20.0% 13.7%

Other dwelling 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7%

Migration (5 Years Ago)Same Address 48.1% 58.6% 57.1% 47.0% 51.5%

Within Same Suburb/SA2/LGA/State 3.0% 0.0% 6.3% 6.7% 36.2%

Within Australia 21.9% 41.4% 32.3% 38.1% 5.6%

Overseas 0.9% 0.0% 3.5% 7.2% 6.8%

Not Stated 26.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.1%

44.5%

16.6%



2.5. DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY The demographic analysis shows that the local catchment area, when compared against the Gold Coast LGA as a whole, had significantly higher proportions of family households, particularly couple households with children under 15 years. The proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander residents was the same within the local catchment area as the Gold Coast LGA at 1.7%.

The median age of residents within the local catchment was higher than the Gold Coast LGA, however, it doesn’t appear that this is connected to higher proportions of retirees. Conversely the area had higher employment and workforce participation rates than the Gold Coast LGA as whole, as well as higher average household incomes and higher proportions of persons employed in the white-collar professions. It is assumed that employed residents either commute to Southport or Brisbane for employment or work from home.

The data also shows that a higher proportion of residents lived in the same residence 5 years ago, which may reflect families choosing to remain in the area over a significant period of time. Based on the age structure, there appears to be a higher level of migration out of the local catchment area among people aged 20 – 34 years, which may relate to people relocating to pursue education or employment opportunities.

The local communities of Springwood and Narenwood are small communities with 659 and 67 estimated residents respectively in 2019. Notably the median age within both communities was 47 years which is 6 years older than the local catchment area. In these communities, there was a higher proportion of persons not in the labour force (37.6% for Springbrook and 37.1% for Narenwood), which combined with the higher proportions of couples with older children and the older median age, may reflect a ‘treechange’ demographic of older retirees moving for lifestyle reasons and / or possibly families who have remained in the community for a long period of time.

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES 9

3. PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES As engagement with local communities is not being undertaken at this stage in the process, research has been conducted to gauge community sentiment via online media sources and based on previous proposals for a cableway in the local area. The most recent of these is the project known as ‘Naturelink’. Similar themes emerged regarding the Naturelink proposal and more recent media commentary about the prospect of a cableway in the local area. The community feedback is summarised from section 3.1 below around the key themes of natural environment; increased tourism; equity and political considerations; and amenity considerations.

In addition to the community feedback described above, a tourism survey conducted in 2019 by the City of Gold Coast Council provides some insights into community views in relation to tourism. The survey sought to gain a deeper understanding of local community’s perceptions and sentiment regarding the tourism industry. It included feedback from a total of 3,316 Queensland residents, with 399 of those residents residing in the Gold Coast region2. The survey compared findings from previous surveys that occurred in 2010, 2013 and 2017.

The survey results have been reviewed to try to gauge regional expectations relating to tourism in the Gold Coast hinterland or cableway projects. The survey didn’t include questions about different types of tourism or different landscapes, however, it did provide an indication that:

▪ Gold Coast residents enjoyed the quiet, peaceful and beautiful aspects of the region;

▪ Approximately 45% of Gold Coast residents perceive that tourists potentially have a negative impact on the environment; and

▪ Although, Gold Coast residents saw some negative impacts associated with a growing tourism industry they generally outlined that positive impacts outweighed negative impacts.

The above outlines that from a broader scale, residents seem to be supportive of an increased tourism industry in the Gold Coast, despite there being some local impacts. Residents identified that the benefits the region gains from tourism-based industries outweighs the potential impacts.

3.1. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Recent Media Commentary3

▪ Conservationists concerned about impacts of a cableway on rainforest environments, although commentary is generally vague high level and do not specify specific impacts or locations of concern.

▪ Impacts on tree canopies during construction from the helicopters; concerns that canopies may not recover from the down draft during construction.

▪ Influx of tourists will result in further degradation to walking tracks.

▪ Need to consider bushfire risk – both impacts on the project and risk to visitors.

Community Feedback on Naturelink Proposal 4

▪ Needs to be located and constructed in a way that considers environmental sensitivities.

▪ Community perception that environmental issues in Springbrook are becoming more critical.

2Tourism and Events Queensland 2019, Social Indicators 2019 Gold Coast. 3 Grant, B.M. 2020, ‘Debate flares between Gold Coast councillor Glenn Tozer, MP Ros Bates over controversial Springbrook cableway’, Courier Mail, June 2020, viewed 26 June 2020, https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/council/debate-flares-between-gold-coast-councillor-glenn-tozer-mp-ros-bates-over-controversial-springbrook-cableway/news-story/9125fd0f6c33bf2637b7ef9a8ee74ab7.

4 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2015, ‘Here They Go Again!’, viewed 26 June 2020, https://cablewaynoway.com.au/.

https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/council/debate-flares-between-gold-coast-councillor-glenn-tozer-mp-ros-bates-over-controversial-springbrook-cableway/news-story/9125fd0f6c33bf2637b7ef9a8ee74ab7



https://cablewaynoway.com.au/

10 PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW)

▪ Views that Springbrook is listed for its environmental values, not its natural beauty or ability to attract tourists. Tourism and Events Queensland 2019, Social Indicators 2019 Gold Coast.5

▪ A cableway would severely impact the fragile ecosystems within Springbrook.

▪ Issues regarding slope and the ability to properly construct the project. 6

▪ Concerns about bushfire risk to cableway infrastructure and users. Note this was rebuked by State Government at time which said the cableway wouldn’t operate during bushfire events. 7

3.2. INCREASED TOURISM Recent Media Commentary

▪ Worried that the cableway will not promote an increase in overnight tourism stays and instead will create a more transient tourist environment with little economic benefit for the local community.

▪ Risk that tourists won’t actually use the cableway due to its cost.

Community Feedback on Naturelink Proposal

▪ Concerns about increases in tourists surrounding areas that are the head of the Gold Coast water catchment and how this may negatively impact on residents.8

3.3. EQUITY AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS Recent Media Commentary

▪ Concerned that private investment will create exclusive spaces within Springbrook for paid users to access, with the general community not allowed in these areas if they have not paid to access them.9

▪ Some in the community believe Council could better direct funding and resources into new, innovative projects to drive the economy and the tourism sector.

▪ A cableway requires private investment to fund the project and preliminary research into the project.

▪ Community uncertainty regarding Council using taxpayer money to fund further impact assessments into a cableway proposal.

Community Feedback on Naturelink Proposal

▪ The project has the potential to create construction jobs and provide longer term employment for the local community.10

▪ Community believe that Springbrook should not be an area that politicians or private developers can exploit.

5 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2015, ‘Here They Go Again!’, viewed 26 June 2020, https://cablewaynoway.com.au/. 6 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2015, Springbrook Cableway No Way 2015, ‘Media Release: Springbrook – Too Small, Too Special, Too Unsafe for a Skyride’, viewed 20 June 2026, http://cablewaynoway.com.au/media-release-springbrook-too-small-too-special-too-unsafe-for-a-skyride/.

7 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2016, ‘Proponents of $100m Cableway Project for Gold Coast Hinterland Say They’ll Bid (Sic) Their Time’, viewed 26 June 2020, http://cablewaynoway.com.au/author/springbrook/.

8 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2015, ‘Media Release: Springbrook – Too Small, Too Special, Too Unsafe for a Skyride’, viewed 20 June 2026, http://cablewaynoway.com.au/media-release-springbrook-too-small-too-special-too-unsafe-for-a-skyride/.

9 Facebook 2020, ‘Thank you Councillor Tozer’, Cableway No Way, viewed 26 June 2020, https://www.facebook.com/pg/cablewaynoway/posts/?ref=page_internal.

10 Springbrook Cableway No Way 2016, ‘Proponents of $100m Cableway Project for Gold Coast Hinterland Say They’ll Bid (Sic) Their Time’, viewed 26 June 2020, http://cablewaynoway.com.au/author/springbrook/.

https://cablewaynoway.com.au/

http://cablewaynoway.com.au/author/springbrook/

http://cablewaynoway.com.au/media-release-springbrook-too-small-too-special-too-unsafe-for-a-skyride/

https://www.facebook.com/pg/cablewaynoway/posts/?ref=page_internal

http://cablewaynoway.com.au/author/springbrook/

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES 11

3.4. AMENITY CONSIDERATIONS Recent Media Commentary

▪ A cableway would result in additional impacts on car parking capacity, as well as increased congestion due to site access.11

▪ Concerned about increased noise pollution during construction due to the use of helicopters.

11 Facebook 2020, Cableway No Way, 14 June, viewed 26 June 2020, https://www.facebook.com/680638565381966/posts/2958068877638912/?d=n.

https://www.facebook.com/680638565381966/posts/2958068877638912/?d=n

12 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS URBIS


4. CASE STUDY ANALYSIS The purpose of the below case study analysis is to review existing cableway projects and proposals to understand the nature of the social opportunities and impacts associated with those projects. Four Australian case studies have been selected as most similar to the Springbrook cableway. The four case studies reviewed and some key statistics are outlined in the Table 2 below.

Table 2: Overview of Case Studies

Case Study

Year Opened

Location

Estimated Visitor Numbers

Sky Rail Kuranda 1995 Kuranda, 15 minutes from Cairns, 50 minutes South of Port Douglas

Approximately 500,000 visitors per year

Scenic World Sky Way 2000 Blue Mountains, 1.75 hours from Sydney

1 million visitors per year

Arthurs Seat Eagle 2016 Mornington Peninsular, 50 minutes from Melbourne

300,000 visitors per year

Mount Wellington Cableway Company

Late 2021 Mount Wellington, 30 minutes from Mount Wellington

Projected 470,979 visitors per year

4.1. SOCIAL OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPACTS The social opportunities and impacts identified through the analysis showed a high level of consistency across the four case studies reviewed. Of the four case studies, the existing Sky Rail Kuranda project and the proposed Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) project contained the most useful and relevant analysis.

The social opportunities identified through the case study analysis are summarised as follows:

▪ All projects identified there would be direct and indirect employment opportunities, from construction jobs during delivery of projects, direct operational jobs following completion and indirect increases in employment in surrounding communities as a result of tourism increases.

▪ The economic impact assessment prepared for the MWCC project referred to economic gains associated with increasing spending on accommodation and hospitality in the local economy.12

▪ The projects were assessed as contributing to bilateral social and cultural relationships as a result of increases in tourists.

▪ Cableways have the potential to create tourist destinations that are more equitable, with easier access for persons with disabilities who may not otherwise be able to access lookouts or viewpoints from walking tracks.13

▪ The cableways were said to provide safer alternatives to traditional walking tracks for locals and tourists alike.

▪ There were opportunities to incorporate educational elements into the project by providing educational tours or through subsidisations of school excursions.

▪ Cableways were assessed as reducing traffic congestion due to diversion of tourist traffic from roads to the cableway, with some cableway assessments concluding that the infrastructure reduced the need for road widening. In some instances, proponents contributed funding to intersection or road upgrades to create better transport networks for residents, despite the contribution to being tied to the additional traffic generated.14

12 Strategy 42 South (2016) MWCC: Economic Impact, Available online: Impacthttps://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5983c660be6594bb0371a9be/1501808327385/MWCC+Economic+Impact+Report_for+public+release.pdf

13 Skyrail 2020, ‘Skyrail Accessibility’, viewed 26 June 2020, https://www.skyrail.com.au/visitor-information/accessibility/. 14 Mount Wellington Cableway Company 2020, Official Details, viewed 26 June 2020, https://mtwellingtoncablecar.com/2018/design-reveal#2018/feedback.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5983c660be6594bb0371a9be/1501808327385/MWCC+Economic+Impact+Report_for+public+release.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5983c660be6594bb0371a9be/1501808327385/MWCC+Economic+Impact+Report_for+public+release.pdf

https://www.skyrail.com.au/visitor-information/accessibility/

https://mtwellingtoncablecar.com/2018/design-reveal#2018/feedback

https://mtwellingtoncablecar.com/2018/design-reveal#2018/feedback

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 13

The social impacts identified through the case studies analysis are summarised as follows:

▪ The projects were thought to potentially draw employment away from surrounding employment centres.

▪ The increase in population resulted in a need for additional housing to be created.

▪ Cableways may impact on social or cultural values associated with place, which can mean different things to different segments of the community.15

▪ The cableway infrastructure can create aesthetic interruptions that may be perceived positively or negatively.

▪ There is potential for impacts to occur to areas of cultural significance and further degradation to traditional landowner sites.16

▪ Increased tourism associated with cableway projects may impact on ‘sleepy or quiet’ amenity that locals cherish.17

▪ Cableway proposals can create division among the community, with some members of the community supporting the proposal and other opposing.

▪ The cableway may not be accessible to all demographics depending on price point.

4.2. SOCIAL LICENCE TO OPERATE The Mount Wellington Cableway Company (MWCC) proposal is currently being assessed by the City of Hobart Council and, subject to receiving approval, is expected to commence operation in late 202118. The proponent has prepared what it refers to as ‘voluntarily adopted community parameters’, which are provided at Figure 7. Reportedly the parameters have been developed over a seven-year period of engagement with the community.

The proponent states that the Tasmanian public insist that the eight key conditions be adhered to and that these requirements go beyond what is required under the planning scheme. These are, in effect, the operator’s social licence to operate.

The parameters provide relevant insights into the design process and design outcomes that could be applied to the Springbrook cableway project to optimise social outcomes.

15 Ethos Urban 2019, ‘Mount Wellington Cable Care Visual Impact Assessment’, 24 January, viewed 26 June 2020, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5d01e62066308b0001208460/1560405561541/Ethos+Urban+VIA+-+318265+Mt+Wellington+Cableway+VIA+20190124.pdf.

16 Kuranda Sky Rail n.d. ‘Locals in Training for NvDA’, viewed 26 June 2020, http://dkeenan.com/NvT/37/1.txt. 17 Kuranda Sky Rail n.d. ‘Locals in Training for NvDA’, viewed 26 June 2020, http://dkeenan.com/NvT/37/1.txt. 18 It is noted that the project MWCC website states that operation is expected to commence in 2021, however, it is recognised this start date is subject to planning approvals. Refer to the following website: https://mtwellingtoncablecar.com/status

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5d01e62066308b0001208460/1560405561541/Ethos+Urban+VIA+-+318265+Mt+Wellington+Cableway+VIA+20190124.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56505ac8e4b027b507820253/t/5d01e62066308b0001208460/1560405561541/Ethos+Urban+VIA+-+318265+Mt+Wellington+Cableway+VIA+20190124.pdf

https://mtwellingtoncablecar.com/status

14 CASE STUDY ANALYSIS URBIS


Figure 7: MWCC Voluntarily Adopted Community Parameters

The final point above (Give Back) is supported by a suite of commitments from the proponent towards charitable and social programs including public infrastructure, education and events and sponsorship programs. One such commitment is to subsidise 100% of the cost for school excursions to the summit. The total commitment is for $500,000 in revenue towards give back programs annually once operational.

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) KEY FINDINGS 15

5. KEY FINDINGS 5.1. OPPORTUNITIES AND IMPACTS A comprehensive list of social opportunities and impacts potentially associated with a cableway project at Springbrook is provided Table 3 below, which is based on the preceding analysis. The table provides:

• an outline of the opportunity or impact (column 1 and 2); • potentially affected and interested stakeholder groups (column 3); and • a suite of possible process and design parameters that could be implemented to enhance opportunities and avoid or mitigate impacts (column 4).

The parameters in the final column of the table could also form a starting point for the development of an assessment framework.

For the purpose of this table, the focus is on external (non-government) stakeholders only and the stakeholders are grouped as follows:

• Traditional Owners / First Nations Peoples • Cableway Users • Communities of Neranwood and Springbrook • Local Residents (of the local catchment area) • Local Environmental Interest Groups • Visitors (i.e. tourists / day visitors to Springbrook) • Students (primary, secondary and tertiary) • Sub-Regional and Regional Communities (Gold Coast and South East Qld) • Persons with Mobility Restrictions • Local Business (located within the local catchment area) • Gold Coast Hinterland Heritage Museum Inc. (located at Mudgeeraba)

Table 4 provides a summary of the opportunities and impacts by affected and interested stakeholder groups.

A set of six core threshold criteria is recommended at section 5.2.

16 KEY FINDINGS URBIS


Table 3: Potential Social Opportunities and Impacts

Opportunity / Impact Description Affected and Interested Stakeholders

Towards Process and Design Parameters

Potential Opportunities Sense of Identity / Sense of Place

Improved connection to place, history and identity, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, through a sharing and celebration of local heritage, history and knowledge (environmental and cultural). Beneficiaries will depend on the extent to which sites of environmental and cultural value remain open and accessible to people not using the cableway.

Cableway Users Local Residents Visitors

Integrate opportunities to share narratives about place, history and identity. Access to places of historical, environmental, cultural and recreational value to remain open to the public.

Access to and Awareness of Sites of Environmental Significance

Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of environmental significance (such as Purling Brook falls). The cableway could improve access to environmentally significant locations that otherwise are difficult to access. There are opportunities to incorporate educational elements into the project by providing educational tours and through subsidisation of school excursions. Improved environmental awareness has the potential to contribute to improved environmental stewardship through environmental education.

Local Environmental Interest Groups Cableway Users Local Residents Visitors Students (primary, secondary and tertiary)

Contribution towards educational programs for school students. Educational commentary to be provided within cable cars. Provision of interpretive signage.

Access and Connection to Sites of Cultural Heritage Significance

Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of cultural significance for local, sub-regional, regional communities. The cableway could improve access to culturally significant locations that otherwise are difficult to access. There are opportunities to incorporate educational elements into the project by providing educational tours and through subsidisation of school excursions. In addition, there is potential for First Nations peoples to become economically empowered through business opportunities such as guided tours and cultural awareness talks.

Traditional Owners / First Nation People Cableway Users Local Residents Visitors Students (primary, secondary and tertiary)

Economic empowerment for Traditional Owners / First Nations peoples should be considered an essential threshold requirement. Route for the cableway should determined following consultation with traditional owners and an understanding of:




• Indigenous cultural heritage sites that should be protected from visitation and avoided;

• Any song lines or dreamtime stories that could be used to inform the route for the cableway.

Opportunities to be explored include:

• Educational commentary provided within cable cars.

• Provision of interpretive signage.

Economic and Employment Benefits

Local economic and employment benefits including during construction and operation and improvements as well as potential for improved employment self-containment. This would include direct and indirect employment opportunities such as construction jobs during delivery of project; direct operational jobs following completion; and indirect increases in employment in surrounding communities as a result of tourism. In addition, the cableway could create opportunities in the tourism and hospitality sectors and associated multiplier benefits.

Local Residents Sub-Regional and Regional Communities Local Businesses

Requirements around proportion of labour to be sourced locally. This will require further consideration as the employment rate within the catchment is higher than the Gold Coast LGA and not all of the required skillset will be available locally.

Equitable Access Creation of a tourist destination that is more equitable, with easier access for persons with disabilities, who may not otherwise be able to access lookouts or viewpoints from walking tracks. Cableway cabins can be designed to accommodate wheelchairs and other mobility devices. Educational commentary can be made available from within the cabins.

Cableway Users Local Residents Visitors Persons with Mobility Restrictions

Access for persons with a disability to be considered in the design of cable cars and any associated infrastructure around embarking / disembarking stations. Cableway cabins to accommodate wheelchairs.





Traffic Diversion Reduced traffic congestion due to diversion of tourist traffic away from highly trafficked roads. The road from Neranwood to Springbrook is narrow and its entire length is heritage listed. If the base station is located before Neranwood, the cableway could reduce traffic impacts on this road by diverting tourists to the cableway. Car parking capacity at Springbrook is a current concern for Springbrook residents. The cableway has the potential to reduce demand for parking in Springbrook as cableway passengers would park at the base station and travel via the cableway.

Cableway Users Local Residents Visitors Gold Coast Hinterland Heritage Museum Inc. (located at Mudgeeraba)

Locate base station before Neranwood to reduce vehicular trips on the road between Neranwood and Springbrook.

Impacts Impacts to Local Character and Amenity (including Car Parking, Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy)

Impacts to local character and amenity resulting from changes to visitation and population characteristics, particularly at locations where passengers embark and disembark. The number of visitors and the potential route options will need to be considered to minimise impacts on local communities such as Springbrook. A key determining factor will be the route and where passengers embark and disembark. Residents have indicated that a cableway at Springbrook would exacerbate existing car parking supply issues at Springbrook, as well as increased traffic congestion. Residents have also expressed a concern about the potential for increased noise pollution during construction due to the use of helicopters. The cableway infrastructure and associated clearing of vegetation can be visually obtrusive depending on the cableway alignment,

Local Residents Communities of Neranwood and Springbrook

Consider an alignment option that avoids cableway passengers disembarking at Springbrook. Consider preparation of a masterplan for Springbrook to address traffic, car parking, pedestrian/cycle connections and other amenity issues specific to the broader area and to identify ways in which the amenity of the area can be protected and enhanced. Traffic impact assessment to include a car parking assessment for Springbrook. Acoustic assessment to include consideration of construction methods and possible use of helicopters.




height and area cleared. A balance is required between impact to the tree canopy and visibility of the cableway structures and cabins. Privacy/ overlooking to private residential areas from overhead cableway also needs to be considered.

It is understood that a visual assessment would be prepared as part of any development proposal. Codesign process with the community should be used to determine most appropriate alignment and community parameters in relation to matters such as height of the cableway cabins. Alignment should avoid overlooking into private residential areas.

Environmental Degradation and Natural Hazards

Concerns (perceived or actual) about environmental impacts associated with the development footprint and increased visitation to the area. Impacts to the rainforest environment and Springbrook ecosystems could include: • impacts to tree canopy resulting from helicopter downdraft

during construction; • degradation of walking tracks; and • clearing of vegetation required to make way for the cableway

infrastructure and associated access and amenities.

Concerns have also been raised by the community in relation to the potential for hazards during construction and operation resulting from slope instability and bushfire.

Local Environmental Interest Groups Local Residents

Identify places that need to be protected and should not be accessed due to environmental sensitivity. Consider capacity limitations on daily visitation. Awareness about environmental stewardship could be provided to cableway users through guided walks, commentary provided in cableway cabins and interpretive signage.

Transient Tourism Potential that the cableway will not promote an increase in overnight tourism stays and instead will create a more transient tourist environment with little economic benefit for the local community.

Local Residents Local Businesses

Codesign process with the community should be used to determine most appropriate alignment and community parameters in relation to matters such as balancing economic gains and local





Economic opportunities will depend upon the alignment for the cableway and the locations where passengers will embark and disembark. Economic opportunities (longer visitation and increased visitor spend) will need to be balanced against impacts (such as the those discussed above) in the event that passengers can disembark at Springbrook.

amenity impacts at Springbrook in particular.

Accessibility, Affordability and Equity

Concerns that the cableway will not be accessible for some people due to its cost and that a public good will be exploited by private interests. Residents have previously expressed a concern that private investment will create exclusive spaces within Springbrook for paid users to access, with the general community unable to access these locations unless paying to use the cableway. Some have expressed a view that Council should not be investing in this study and funds should be directed elsewhere. Some have expressed a view that Springbrook should not be an area that politicians or private developers can exploit. This particular comment is thought to be in response to the proponents of the previous Naturelink proposal.

Communities of Neranwood and Springbrook

Transparency around funding sources and use of tax payer dollars. Price point to use the cableway requires consideration to ensure it is not out of reach for large segments of the community (in addition, concessions for pensioners and students should be available). Places of historical, environmental and cultural value to remain open and accessible to the public. Public benefit considerations should be forefront of the assessment framework, potentially drawing on the International Principles for Social Impact Assessment (SIA)19 and public benefits assessment frameworks established by Building Queensland. Inclusion of commitments by the proponent to ‘give back’ to the local community using the Mount Wellington Cableway Company project as a model.

19 International Association of Impact Assessment (2003) International Principles for Social Impact Assessment, Available at: https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf

https://www.iaia.org/uploads/pdf/IAIA-SIA-International-Principles.pdf




Heritage Values Impacts on locations of cultural heritage value (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous). There is potential for impacts and degradation to occur to areas of cultural heritage significance as a consequence of increased visitation to these sites. Potential impacts to sites of cultural heritage value (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) including Manor House will need to be considered in this regard.

Traditional Owners / First Nation People Local Residents Sub-Regional and Regional Communities Gold Coast Hinterland Heritage Museum Inc. (located at Mudgeeraba)

Work with Traditional Owners to determine appropriate management strategies of Indigenous cultural heritage sites. Work with the local community, heritage groups and relevant authorities to determine appropriate management strategies of non-Indigenous cultural heritage sites.

Social Cohesion Social division among the community, with some members of the community supporting the proposal and other opposing it. Sentiments expressed by community members to date have indicated there are strong views about the idea of a cableway at Springbrook. As the proposal will likely create a range of impacts and benefits, and the distribution of these impacts and benefits will be uneven across different segments of the community, there will likely be divergent views among the community.

Communities of Neranwood and Springbrook Local Residents Sub-Regional and Regional Communities

A co-design process will be important to ensure opportunities are maximised and impacts are avoided or mitigated to the extent possible.



Table 4: Potential Social Opportunities and Impacts by Affected and Interested Stakeholders

Affected and Interested Stakeholders

Potential Social Opportunities

Potential Social Impacts

Indigenous Persons and Groups

• Traditional Owners / First Nations People

Access and Connection to Sites of Cultural Heritage Significance - Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of cultural significance for local, sub-regional, regional communities.

Cableways Users, Visitors and Tourists

• Cableway Users • Visitors

Sense of Identity / Sense of Place Improved connection to place, history and identity, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, through a sharing and celebration of local heritage, history and knowledge (environmental and cultural). Access to and Awareness of Sites of Environmental Significance – Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of environmental significance (such as Purling Brook falls). Access and Connection to Sites of Cultural Heritage Significance - Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of cultural significance for local, sub-regional, regional communities. Equitable Access - Creation of a tourist destination that is more equitable, with easier access for persons with disabilities, who may not otherwise be able to access lookouts or viewpoints from walking tracks. Traffic Diversion - Reduced traffic congestion due to diversion of tourist traffic away from highly trafficked roads.


Residential Communities (local, sub-regional and regional)

• Local Residents • Sub-Regional and

Regional Communities • Communities of

Neranwood and Springbrook

Sense of Identity / Sense of Place Improved connection to place, history and identity, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, through a sharing and celebration of local heritage, history and knowledge (environmental and cultural). Economic and Employment Benefits - Local economic and employment benefits including during construction and operation and improvements as well as potential for improved employment self-containment. Equitable Access - Creation of a tourist destination that is more equitable, with easier access for persons with disabilities, who may not otherwise be able to access lookouts or viewpoints from walking tracks. Traffic Diversion - Reduced traffic congestion due to diversion of tourist traffic away from highly trafficked roads.

Impacts to Local Character and Amenity (including Car Parking, Noise, Visual Amenity and Privacy) - Impacts to local character and amenity resulting from changes to visitation and population characteristics, particularly at locations where passengers embark and disembark. Environmental Degradation and Natural Hazards - Concerns (perceived or actual) about environmental impacts associated with the development footprint and increased visitation to the area. Transient Tourism - Potential that the cableway will not promote an increase in overnight tourism stays and instead will create a more transient tourist environment with little economic benefit for the local community. Accessibility, Affordability and Equity - Concerns that the cableway will not be accessible for some people due to its cost and that a public good will be exploited by private interests. Heritage Values - Impacts on locations of cultural heritage value (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous). Social Cohesion - Social division among the community, with some members of the community supporting the proposal and other opposing it.



Specific Interest Groups / Groups with Specific Needs

• Local Environmental Interest Groups

• Persons with Mobility Restrictions

• Students (primary, secondary and tertiary)

• Gold Coast Hinterland Heritage Museum Inc. (located at Mudgeeraba)

Access to and Awareness of Sites of Environmental Significance – Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of environmental significance (such as Purling Brook falls). Access and Connection to Sites of Cultural Heritage Significance - Improved accessibility to, and awareness of, places of cultural significance for local, sub-regional, regional communities. Equitable Access - Creation of a tourist destination that is more equitable, with easier access for persons with disabilities, who may not otherwise be able to access lookouts or viewpoints from walking tracks.

Environmental Degradation and Natural Hazards - Concerns (perceived or actual) about environmental impacts associated with the development footprint and increased visitation to the area.

Business and Industry

• Local Businesses

Economic and Employment Benefits - Local economic and employment benefits including during construction and operation and improvements as well as potential for improved employment self-containment.

Transient Tourism - Potential that the cableway will not promote an increase in overnight tourism stays and instead will create a more transient tourist environment with little economic benefit for the local community.

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) KEY FINDINGS

5.2. TOWARDS AN ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Drawing on the process and design parameters described in 5.1, a set of six core threshold criteria have been identified as important considerations for any future assessment of a cableway project at Springbrook. These core threshold criteria are:

1. To gain back the community’s trust in the cableway concept, transparency across all aspects of project’s development, funding and design will be critical.

2. There needs to be a clear commitment to give back to the community and provide a social return as compensation for access to a highly valued public good.

3. A participatory / co-design process should be used with the proponent working alongside the community to develop options for the cableway’s alignment and a preferred design.

4. It is critical that economic empowerment for First Nations Peoples is achieved through the project.

5. Free and equitable access to locations of environmental, cultural and recreation value need to be maintained for the general community.

6. The proponent should work with the community to develop a set of ‘community parameters’ and establish a social licence to operate, similar to the approach applied to the Mount Wellington Cableway Company project.

The above six threshold criteria should be integrated into the assessment framework to be developed with the City of Gold Coast Council for the cableway project.

24 DISCLAIMER URBIS


DISCLAIMER This report is dated 24 June 2020 and incorporates information and events up to that date only and excludes any information arising, or event occurring, after that date which may affect the validity of Urbis Pty Ltd (Urbis) opinion in this report. Urbis prepared this report on the instructions, and for the benefit only, of City of Gold Coast Council (Instructing Party) for the purpose of Technical Paper (Purpose) and not for any other purpose or use. To the extent permitted by applicable law, Urbis expressly disclaims all liability, whether direct or indirect, to the Instructing Party which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose other than the Purpose, and to any other person which relies or purports to rely on this report for any purpose whatsoever (including the Purpose).

In preparing this report, Urbis was required to make judgements which may be affected by unforeseen future events, the likelihood and effects of which are not capable of precise assessment.

All surveys, forecasts, projections and recommendations contained in or associated with this report are made in good faith and on the basis of information supplied to Urbis at the date of this report, and upon which Urbis relied. Achievement of the projections and budgets set out in this report will depend, among other things, on the actions of others over which Urbis has no control.

In preparing this report, Urbis may rely on or refer to documents in a language other than English, which Urbis may arrange to be translated. Urbis is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such translations and disclaims any liability for any statement or opinion made in this report being inaccurate or incomplete arising from such translations.

Whilst Urbis has made all reasonable inquiries it believes necessary in preparing this report, it is not responsible for determining the completeness or accuracy of information provided to it. Urbis (including its officers and personnel) is not liable for any errors or omissions, including in information provided by the Instructing Party or another person or upon which Urbis relies, provided that such errors or omissions are not made by Urbis recklessly or in bad faith.

This report has been prepared with due care and diligence by Urbis and the statements and opinions given by Urbis in this report are given in good faith and in the reasonable belief that they are correct and not misleading, subject to the limitations above.

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 25

APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

26 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA URBIS


No. % %Household Income (Households)$Neg/Nil 75 1.2% 1.7%$1-$7,800 41 0.7% 0.7%$7,800-$15,600 82 1.3% 1.8%$15,600-$20,800 103 1.7% 2.6%$20,800-$26,000 268 4.3% 6.8%$26,000-$33,800 214 3.5% 5.1%$33,800-$41,600 414 6.7% 8.2%$41,600-$52,000 422 6.8% 7.8%$52,000-$65,000 571 9.2% 9.7%$65,000-$78,000 560 9.1% 8.8%$78,000-$91,000 463 7.5% 7.0%$91,000-$104,000 486 7.9% 6.8%$104,000-$130,000 861 13.9% 12.0%$130,000-$156,000 597 9.7% 7.3%$156,000-$182,000 316 5.1% 4.4%$182,000-$208,000 236 3.8% 3.5%$208,000 plus 469 7.6% 5.7%Age Distribution (Persons)Aged 0-4 1,400 6.2% 5.9%Aged 5-9 1,782 7.9% 6.3%Aged 10-14 1,768 7.8% 5.9%Aged 15-19 1,499 6.7% 6.1%Aged 20-24 1,056 4.7% 6.7%Aged 25-29 979 4.3% 6.8%Aged 30-34 1,279 5.7% 6.9%Aged 35-39 1,512 6.7% 6.7%Aged 40-44 1,860 8.3% 7.1%Aged 45-49 1,856 8.2% 7.0%Aged 50-55 1,679 7.5% 6.5%Aged 55-59 1,574 7.0% 6.1%Aged 60-64 1,252 5.6% 5.4%Aged 65-69 1,194 5.3% 5.4%Aged 70-74 798 3.5% 4.1%Aged 75-79 536 2.4% 2.9%Aged 80-84 314 1.4% 1.9%Aged 85+ 191 0.8% 2.1%Age Distribution (Persons)Babies and Pre-schoolers (0-4) 1,400 6.2% 5.9%Primary Schoolers (5-14) 3,550 15.8% 12.2%Secondary Schoolers (15-19) 1,499 6.7% 6.1%Tertiary Schoolers/Independants (20-24) 1,056 4.7% 6.7%Young Workforce (25-34) 2,258 10.0% 13.8%Parents and Home-builders (35-49) 5,228 23.2% 20.8%Older Workforce and Pre-Retirees (50-59) 3,253 14.4% 12.6%Empty Nesters and Retirees (60-69) 2,446 10.9% 10.8%Seniors (70-84) 1,648 7.3% 9.0%Frail aged (85+) 191 0.8% 2.1%Birthplace (Persons)Australian Born 15,599 73.9% 69.3%Overseas Born 5,499 26.1% 30.7%

Combined Local Catchment Gold Coast LGA

URBIS 20.09.01 TECHNICAL PAPER FINAL (FOLLOWING COUNCIL REVIEW) DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 27

Household Composition (Persons)Family Household 18,916 92.4% 85.6%Group Household 474 2.3% 5.1%Lone Household 1,075 5.3% 9.3%Family Composition (Families)Couple family with no children 2,098 34.0% 39.5%Couple family with children under 15 2,139 34.7% 29.2%Couple family with no children under 15 954 15.5% 12.7%One parent family with children under 15 496 8.0% 8.9%One parent family with no children under 15 429 6.9% 8.4%Other 57 0.9% 1.4%Labour Force (Persons)Employed 10,898 62.1% 57.3%Unemployed 675 3.8% 4.3%Not in Labour Force 4,917 28.0% 30.6%Not Stated 1,061 6.0% 7.8%Participation Rate 65.9% 61.6%Occupation (Persons)Managers 1,400 12.8% 12.4%Professionals 2,146 19.7% 18.3%Technicians & trades workers 1,786 16.4% 14.9%Community & Personal Service Workers 1,228 11.2% 12.1%Clerical & Administrative Workers 1,505 13.8% 13.6%Sales Workers 1,162 10.6% 12.1%Machinery operators & Drivers 506 4.6% 5.1%Labourers 994 9.1% 9.8%Other 190 1.7% 1.7%Housing Tenure (Dwellings)Owner 1,955 27.8% 27.2%Purchaser 3,539 50.4% 34.9%Renter 1,533 21.8% 37.9%Dwelling Structure (Dwellings)Separate House 6,393 89.2% 58.5%Semi-detached 684 9.5% 20.7%Flat, Unit or apartment 47 0.7% 20.0%Other dwelling 41 0.6% 0.7%

28 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA URBIS


Springbrook Cableway Technical Note - Social

Documents

Transcript of Springbrook Cableway Technical Note - Social