The state's planning appeals tribunal is expected to hear an appeal against Dorset Council's development application to remove rail infrastructure in preparation for a rail trail.
The matter with the Resource Management and Appeals Tribunal was listed for May, but a series of adjournments resulted in the hearing being pushed back.
It is understood the hearing could be in mid-August.
Previously, Dorset Council approved a development for 26 kilometres of its proposed $1.5 million rail trail from Wyena to Scottsdale.
The DA received a petition with 1101 signatures against it and 34 representations from the public exhibition period.
North East Residents and Farmers chairman Stuart Bryce indicated that the appeal would focus on whether the removal of rail infrastructure complied with the Strategic Infrastructure Corridors Act.
The update was provided at a meeting hosted by the North East Residents and Farmers.
Launceston and North East railway chairman Paul Cabalzar attended.
Mr Bryce said the group was ready to take the appeal beyond RMPAT if necessary.
"I just think it's absurd that it has gone to RMPAT," he said. "The railway is a public utility whether it's being used or not it's still a public utility."
If the RMPAT appeal was lost, the group was open to considering further appeals which could be taken in the Supreme Court, albeit costly.
The group is concerned by the cost of maintenance and upkeep of the proposed bike trail on ratepayers.
READ MORE: Tasmania shuts borders to Greater Brisbane
The potential formation of a Dorset ratepayers association to speak on behalf of the community in council matters was also raised.
"There are a number of issues, which we've taken to Dorset Council ... and this is because people are coming to us now," Mr Bryce said.
"We've been asked to do another meeting in Scottsdale by people.
"I think we've got a duty of care to get this [information] out."
Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content:
What do you think? Send us a letter to the editor: