The contentious proposal to build a $170-million cableway in the World Heritage-listed Springbrook National Park is facing "the most complicated approval" process and could take years to resolve, according to the chief executive of Gold Coast City Council.

The project has gotten off to a difficult start, with the state government rebuffing the council's attempts to sign a memorandum of understanding and refusing efforts to have the project prioritised on the Coordinator-General's program of works.

Nonetheless, council's Transport and Infrastructure Committee voted this week to undertake consultation with traditional owners, which is expected to cost at least $500,000 and take six to 12 months.

It is the first step in what will likely be a drawn out and costly process.

"It is the most stringent approval and the most complicated approval you can get, but it's not unheard of," council chief executive Tim Baker said.

"Any development inside the World Heritage area requires added approvals for good reason — because it's inside a World Heritage area and an area that is of global significance."

Multiple tiers of approval

The cableway would be built and managed by a private operator.

Council's pre-feasibility study estimated the cableway could make $35.4m annually, support 59 ongoing jobs and attract up to 580,000 passengers every year.

It also estimated that, as part of a broader tourism strategy for the hinterland, the cableway could support 53 indirect jobs and increase the gross regional product of the Gold Coast by $33.6m.

Mr Baker says the proposal will first require consent from the Queensland government because it owns the land.

Then it would need state environmental approvals along with approvals under relevant state parks legislation as well as council approval.

The cableway would also fall under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which Mr Baker says is "the most rigorous environmental approval you can get in this country".

"That's a two-year exercise on its own," he said.

"Over and above that, because the project will most likely – certainly – be of national significance and it's in the World Heritage area, it will need to be ratified by the World Heritage Committee."

Consultation 'not really clear'

Council documents show it sought a memorandum of understanding with the Queensland government that could have provided funding support, but the state declined.

"[Council's pre-feasibility study] excluded community and traditional owner consultation, noting there has previously been, and continues to be, significant community concern about this project," Department of Tourism Director-General John Lee wrote in March 2021 letter to council.

"The state sees a thorough and extensive community and traditional owner consultation process, led by council, as the necessary next step in determining the feasibility of a cableway."

But councillor Peter Young told this week's committee meeting that "the actual requirements for the consultation are not really clear and we may be falling into a bit of a hole here".

Council was also informed that the proposed cableway would need to address "all the issues" that led to the refusal of a similar project in 2000, including fire hazards, environmental impacts and the potential threat to the area's World Heritage values.

Environmental impact studies needed

Concerns have been raised that without updated environmental studies into the area, consultation may be pre-emptive.

Councillor Glenn Tozer wrote to state Environment Minister Meaghan Scanlon in May last year, suggesting that "community consultation at the time will be unproductive, without updated reference material clearly outlining the environmental impact and required mitigating measures".

Ms Scanlon replied that without more details, including the specific cableway route, "it would be difficult to specify environmental impacts and mitigation measures".

Mr Tozer said the World Heritage management plan "that was delivered about 20 years ago" should be updated to create a better-informed consultation process.

"Frankly, I think we're going about it the wrong way," he said.

"There is no commercial proponent on the table."

Mr Baker said any proposal would need to involve "sensible and appropriate tourism" to navigate the complicated approval process.

"Can it be built? Yes. Should it be built? That's a matter for those three levels of government," he said.

"It's not my job as the CEO to pass judgement on whether or not it should happen."

Danggan Balun (Five Rivers) Aboriginal Corporation, which council's committee heard holds the area's native title claim, has been contacted for comment.