Bundaberg regional COuncil meeting re rv sites.

Oma · Guru

Bundaberg regional COuncil meeting re rv sites.

rockylizard · Guru

Oma wrote:

Jocelyn Kay McLellan to Bundaberg Regional Council
What was the outcome of the meeting with the CMCA regarding RV rest areas?

Bundaberg Regional CouncilThanks Joceyln for your enquiry. Council did receive a presentation from the Queensland State Representative of CMCA last Monday as part of our regular consultation days, at which members of the community are welcome to bring ideas and presentations to the attention of the full Council. The representative outlined the concept of Freedom Parks whereby a small number are now being established or considered in Queensland for exclusive use of CMCA members. The RV Friendly Town program was also discussed. The representative agreed on the day to take the information he had gleaned from his meeting with Council and proposes to write to Council in the New Year with some ideas and thoughts for further consideration. Thanks

Gday...

Good to see the Council is obviously considering the needs of the travelling public. However, it is unfortunate that it appears that only those members of CMCA will be able to benefit from a change of heart by this previously "Grey Nomad Unfriendly" Council/community.

For those that do like to sleep in these areas within large towns it appears to be a small step forward. It would be even better if the "general travelling public" were also afforded that opportunity.

Thankfully, I don't ever expect to sleep in a rest area overnight in a large town - I stay in a van park. If I am going to be in a crowded environment, I at least would like 'full services'.

Cheers - John

Bugsy · Veteran Member

Gday...
Good to see the Council is obviously considering the needs of the travelling public. However, it is unfortunate that it appears that only those members of CMCA will be able
to benefit from a change of heart by this previously "Grey Nomad Unfriendly" Council/community.
For those that do like to sleep in these areas within large towns it appears to be a small step forward. It would be even better if the "general travelling public" were also afforded that opportunity.
Thankfully, I don't ever expect to sleep in a rest area overnight in a large town - I stay in a van park. If I am going to be in a crowded environment, I at least would like 'full services'.
Cheers - John

You seem to have missed the point that CMCA RV Parks was just one of the items discussed with council. Can you explain to me why it is unfortunate that a club who spends its own money (members money) to provide facilities for its own members should make them available to the general public who haven't contributed to the costs of those facilities. It must be remembered that the CMCA has over the years spent $millions on dump points, RV Friendly towns etc etc which the 90% of us who haven't contributed, use for free.

Bruce and Bev · Guru

I spoke to the CEO of the small shire we are currently staying in. Friendly guy, new to the job and area. The shire has its own CP but no dump point, kitchen or free camp area.

He was dismayed to find out this as many caravans travel through the town, but don't stop and spend anything in the shops.

He had read the correspondence sent to his predecessor from the CMCA about RV friendly towns. He wasn't aware that if his shire went down this track, that only self contained vehicles could stay there. Like many other decision makers in Councils and Shires, he is not an RVer.

He has decided to have a dump point and kitchen put in their CP next year. The facilities will be available to all, including those not staying in the CP (the washing machines and dryers are $2 - cheap, huh) and he will also create a free 24 hour free camp area which will be adjacent to the CP with a donation box to cover the free toilets etc.

It seems that the CMCA are sneaking their idea of free camping (grey water storage primarily) into the shires because the latter don't understand it excludes most caravans

I have no objection to the CMCA buying land and setting up CPs for exclusive use of their members - so long of course no public funds or land is given to them and they comply with the same requirements of a private CP

rockylizard · Guru

Bugsy wrote:
You seem to have missed the point that CMCA RV Parks was just one of the items discussed with council. Can you explain to me why it is unfortunate that a club who spends its own money (members money) to provide facilities for its own members should make them available to the general public who haven't contributed to the costs of those facilities. It must be remembered that the CMCA has over the years spent $millions on dump points, RV Friendly towns etc etc which the 90% of us who haven't contributed, use for free.

Gday...

Sorry Bugsy, but I haven't really missed the point. I do understand that Council will be (is?) discussing other items.

I also understand that CMCA has, over many years, contributed to the installation of many, many dump points throughout Australia for the convenience, and use, of the general travelling public. Obviously, I welcome that initiative, particularly as it was not one to restrict the availability of those facilities to their members only, but for them to be available to the general travelling public. A totally laudable initiative that they undertook for their own reasons.

I also understand that CMCA are now actively extending the ability of their members to have access to special sleeping spaces within towns by gaining Council approval for CMCA to obtain, either by buying/leasing (or Council 'donation') of land/areas within the Council's jurisdiction.

My issue is that, due to the ongoing and quite successful lobbying by CMCA, Councils that have generally been 'Grey Nomad unfriendly' are being convinced to provide overnight stopping areas that will be only used by those who are members of CMCA and that CMCA advise Council that CMCA will 'enforce' the conditions under which those users will be allowed to stay. These Councils are being convinced that RVers will be completely self-contained, and, as members of CMCA, will be more responsible than the 'general travelling public'.

CMCA certainly has the prerogative to represent its members and to further the facilities available to those members through the lobbying and representation by CMCA on their behalf. Strength to their arm I say - and CMCA have become a very influential, and successful, organisation in recent years in their lobbying of Councils throughout Australia ... on behalf of its members.

However, because there is a dearth of other organisations having the influence, tenacity and resolve as displayed by CMCA, these 'Grey Nomad unfriendly' Councils and communities are convinced of the sensibility of attracting 'travelling wallets' but only if they are 'accredited' to the standards CMCA members are required to adhere to - leave no trace/fully self-contained etc etc. Councils have not seen, and do not see, the value of providing any facilities for travellers ... quite probably further coloured by the image that 'backpackers' and some thoughtless, inconsiderate, 'general travellers' have created over time.

The greater majority of 'travellers', who are non-members of CMCA and are not equipped to be 'fully self-contained', are considered by Councils as 'undesirable' (backpackers and/or inconsiderate general travellers) - which unfortunately is understandable given the image provided by 'CMCA of its travellers/members' .... therefore no facilities, of any description will be provided to other travellers.

Despite my position perhaps being viewed by some, particularly CMCA and its members, as 'sour grapes' it is not. As I said, strength to the CMCA's arm in their endeavours. It is unfortunate that there is no other body/organisation that is, or is likely to be, as influential or tenacious as CMCA, which means that those who are not members of CMCA will increasingly find that there is a decreasing availability of 'rest areas' within or near towns at which they can stop.

The solution is elusive - travellers could take steps to suitably equip their RV to comply with CMCA's leave no trace policy and join their organisation or continue to travel as they do now - until it is eroded by communities who have been led to see RVers from only one point of view.

I do not raise these issues on my behalf as I doubt I would ever want, or need, to sleep at one of these 'rest areas' that CMCA are now so actively promoting and establishing for their member's exclusive use. If I have the need to be within a town, for whatever reason, I will stay in the caravan park. If I am to be in such a populated area then I would prefer to have access to some facilities, and pay the price for those facilities. I cannot see the point in being in a crowded, restrictive, unattractive 'car park' just because there is no fee, or a small fee, applied.

Perhaps time will erode my lifestyle choices but until such time I will continue to camp in actual camping areas, with or without facilities, at no cost or low cost and enjoy a quiet, predominantly picturesque environment usually without crowds.

Sorry that seems to have gone on and on ... but I cannot get excited about the efforts and selfishness of CMCA pursuing this initiative that is ultimately going to be to the detriment of the "general travelling public".

Cheers - John

-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 12th of December 2015 05:06:01 PM

Radar · Guru

Well said John.

Your reply was excellent, may you travel in peace where ever you are.

Bugsy · Veteran Member

rockylizard wrote:

Gday...

My issue is that, due to the ongoing and quite successful lobbying by CMCA, Councils that have generally been 'Grey Nomad unfriendly' are being convinced to provide overnight stopping areas that will be only used by those who are members of CMCA and that CMCA advise Council that CMCA will 'enforce' the conditions under which those users will be allowed to stay. These Councils are being convinced that RVers will be completely self-contained, and, as members of CMCA, will be more responsible than the 'general travelling public'.

The solution is elusive - travellers could take steps to suitably equip their RV to comply with CMCA's leave no trace policy and join their organisation or continue to travel as they do now - until it is eroded by communities who have been led to see RVers from only one point of view.

-- Edited by rockylizard on Saturday 12th of December 2015 05:06:01 PM

Hi John,

I can understand your comments and the fears expressed even though I personally believe they are partly unwarranted and particularly, I believe directed at the wrong party. I accept that your opinions are not sour grapes however as I see it we need to look at what is happening overseas to see what our future is likely to be in this country. Europe has many self-contained sites provided by the local communities and if you are not able to comply with their requirements you go to an authorised campsite which sometimes is right next door. The NZ club has for many years been developing their own club owned/leased member only sites which have worked extremely well. They also have a much more enlightened freedom camping policy. In fact most people I know who hire a rig over there even for a few weeks join the club just to get access to those site. Whether you and I like the concept of self-containment is quite irrelevant and like it or not it is coming. I am at a loss to understand why the industry in Australia has been so slow in the uptake of this growing trend in RVs. In more recent time there is an emerging trend with our manufacturers but some are reticent to change.

We are losing caravan parks at about 12/14 a year in Australia for various reasons but mainly because they can get a far greater return on their investment by selling the land value or converting it to other purposes. Even as I type there is rumour of one park in Bundaberg having recently changed hands being converted to a retirement village, so less places for us to stay even if we want to. Around Bundaberg already there are signs everywhere forbidding overnight stopping. If clubs (plural) like the CMCA do not take initiatives where are we all going to go with 20,000+ new rigs manufactured in Australia each year and around 30,000 registered with home conversions and imports.

One of the big problems I see in Australia is the divisions in RVing and if the 90% who weren't members of a body working for us were involved we would have much more clout with governments and tourism bodies. The one attempt to establish MoTouring as a peak body could hardly be considered a success with a major club pulling the pin and doing their own thing.

I don't believe your claim that establishing RV Parks as is being done will diminish the number of non self-contained sites in this country. If establishment of an RV park in a hard case city like Bundaberg where there is NO camping of any kind within a reasonable distance of the city, then I see that as a step forward, not a step backwards. The alternative is maintaining the status quo which in this city is no overnight parking, one park lost to floods, another being lost to a redevelopment and who know what lies ahead.

Just one final comment, I choose to travel with a dog and on many occasions there are sites where I am not allowed to camp so I go elsewhere. I see that as no different to self-containment, if I choose to travel in a vehicle that is not self-contained I don't expect to be able to camp in a site for self-contained vehicles just as I do with no dogs allowed.

It is a debate that no doubt will go on forever but in a changing world, things are changing and I guess it is our choice whether we want to change with it or not, but one thing I don't believe we should do is blame somebody else for the personal choices we make.

Jocelyn Kay McLellan to Bundaberg Regional Council

Comments

Jocelyn Kay McLellan to Bundaberg Regional Council