Community & Business
9 April, 2025
"Please explain": decision deferred
Caravan park decision Tenterfield
When is a caravan park not a caravan park? These and other searching questions inspired councillors to refuse to decide about a contentious development application south of the border.
The morning of the ordinary meeting of Tenterfield Shire Council began with a presentation by a very agitated principal of St Joseph’s Primary School, who cannot conceive of a caravan park adjacent to the school.
While emotive and effective, more extensive debate and revelations later in the meeting determined a blanket of confusion over several matters regarding the development application. In fact, enough questions about the application prompted Cr Kim Rhodes to vote to lay the matter on the table until more information could be obtained.
The motion passed. Cr Owen Bancroft also agreed that council was being asked to make decisions without accurate or complete information.
The original recommendation put to councillors last week was to refuse the development application for the establishment of a caravan park on Francis Street because the proposal did not provide the “necessary level of amenity required by the Local Government; the proposal is not “consistent with the caravan park definition under the Tenterfield Local Environmental Plan which requires “access to communal amenities.”
While the recommendation seemed straightforward, and there seemed to be a clear grounds to refuse approval to the applicants, that turned out not to be the case.
There were three main issues: was the proposed facility even a “caravan park”; does council have enough information about the project, and is there really any risk to child safety?
The term “caravan park” can be seen as a dog whistle to residents who are concerned that the site could become home to transients, squatters and the semi-homeless. But, as Cr Owen Bancroft revealed, this is wrong. The application is for a camper van and mobile RV park, where only fully-self contained RVs are allowed to stay for up to one week. Most likely, the visitors would have to be members of the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia as well, and thus fully documented.
As such, amenity blocks are not required, much like the RV park that was approved and is running in Gunnedah.
Whether a proposed RV park should lease the land directly from council or take a sublease from the not-for-profit Transport Museum became another focus of councillors debating the issue. As the papers were shuffled and questions asked of the planning staff, it became clear that there was no clarity at all.
Mayor Bronwyn Petrie announced that “there appears to be some items still missing from the information, and my feeling is it is premature…a decision cannot be made today”.
Cr Tim Bonner agreed he had “multiple questions” and wondered if the only hurdle for the application to be approved was building a toilet block.
At this juncture, Cr Kim Rhodes raised her hand.
“I’m well aware our council staff have put in a lot of work in this submission, but there have been a lot of questions, and I’m wondering if it should be deferred until we can get all the answers…and get a full picture of what we’re voting on this morning.”
Cr Rhodes’ motion was passed with Cr Bancroft asking for a list of the issues that require further information in order for councillors to decide for or against the development application.
Council resolved that the Campervan and Motorhome Club of Australia’s (CMCA) reply to the issues raised in the submissions received from objectors; that CMCA’s propose amendments regarding the shelter, forecourt and lighting; that further information be provided on materials previously placed by council on the site of the proposed development that required the Environmental Protection Agency’s intervention; details of the condition of Francis Street; the applicant to produce and fund an independent Child Safety Assessment Report; more information regarding an exemption for amenities by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment; more information as regards a possible car wash bay on the site; details of the CMCA’s policy and procedures regarding non-compliant vehicles and/or behaviour of facility users, specifically addressing eviction procedures; clarification as to whether the CMCA’s definition of RVs and Motorhomes include self-contained caravans; and information regarding a potential future lease versus a sub-lease agreement and/or a potential subdivision of the area.
Principal Cherie Yates remains concerned, explaining that she has met with two councillors on the matter.
“I am not at all hopeful that child protection is enough to stop this development, which is hugely distressing to the parents of our school,” she told The Town & Country Journal.
