Legal Ramifications after Rockhampton free camp closure

rrakausk · Veteran Member

Legal Ramifications after Rockhampton free camp closure

Snippy · Senior Member

Well said rrskausk:

All we can do is vote with our feet.

We avoid coastal areas due to overpriced caravan parks, same with large towns.

Closing free camps won't drive us into caravan parks, it will drive us away.

Nuff said.

Kebbin · Guru

rrakausk wrote:
Hi.
I just read in the RV Daily that the Caravan Parks Association has forced Rockhampton Council to close their city free camp
via legal action.
So much for free choice in Australia.
I have used van parks in the past before I retired, but now free camp wherever possible.
I know it is illegal to be poor in Australia, but the money we save in park fees gets spent in local towns instead.
Many of those businesses now struggle due to free camp closures because travelers pass through without spending.
I reckon the parks association has shot them selves in the foot though.

Some councils have given van park owners rates concessions. I can see those drying up and possibly a super levy passed
by council especially if they are hooked up to sewerage etc.

The article stated that when the author tried to book in to van parks in the Rocky area, the phones were unanswered or the response was terse to say the least. "We are full - one left. Take it or leave it. If you are not here by 6pm don't bother" was the attitude.

The precedent the Association used was that of "subsidiary use". Since the park where the free camp was situated was primarily for day use
and that is what council had zoned its use for, free camping shouldn't be allowed was their argument.
The bloody beak agreed unfortunately and dictated the free camp be closed immediately

However since the councils set the zoning, they just have to change the use in a meeting, and the problem should be solved.
Enlightened city councils like Logan are actually seeking to create more free camps in an area where none exist between basically Caloundra and Tweed heads. They understand that not everyone is rich enough to pay for the overpriced and cramped sites in van parks.

In Tassie, they have been forced to shut free camps because of "unfair competition".
Is this Australia or some communist state?
The way I see it, van parks are creating a conflict situation.

I for one will never use one again. I don't care about their investment.
Screw them.

Um not quite correct.
1. The Council did not have a approved/correct development application for the site.
2. The 'beak' was a Judge.
3. The hearings were over a numbers of days.
4. I'm pretty sure you have your political states mixed up.
I read a local newspaper article about a CP park operator in Rocky that leased a CP off the Council, a couple of weeks later the Council opened Kershaw to free camping, his CP was the closest to Kershaw, now do you think that was fair?

-- Edited by Kebbin on Wednesday 19th of December 2018 11:33:34 AM

Desert Dweller · Guru

There's plenty of beautiful bushland out there to camp in if you've noticed.

Who needs a free camp in a bl**dy big metropolis like Rocky anyway?

No loss.

blaze · Guru

stay in town and stay ina park, outside towns is the place for cheap/free camping
cheers
blaze

brickies · Guru

Yes you are so right Blaze some people always want a free ride and tell us how much money they spend in these town , Just move on if you had read the report on Rockhampton case you would see that council make Caravan park supply services and council were not providing any service and if they did why should ratepayers money be ue to give outsider a free ride .

Santa · Guru

Blaze and Desert Dweller are correct, cities/large towns are not the place for free camps.

Phillipn · Guru

Caravan park operators think they own all people with RV`s, they are doing their best to make it legal.

Reminds me of the case at Kununurra, when a caravan park operator wanted the council to reinstate the fine on a person after the council cancelled the fine. The person had pulled up in the town area for a rest.

Mrs Kelly would not let Ned and his brothers play with people like c`park operators when they were children, because they were too dishonest.

Goldfinger · Senior Member

If travelling folk are being fair, reasonable and considerate and acting legally, then I have no problem whatsoever and believe in' live and let live without the miserable pettiness.........life is

hard enough through finances and health, to deny anyone a chance to enjoy themselves travelling in line with their personal circumstances.....they can stay 'here' and I figure I can

stay 'there' without worrying who's getting what for free.....providing they clean up after themselves, which the majority of decent folk do....Hoo Roo

Whenarewethere · Guru

It is a vicious circle, limited income to live off or in real terms decreasing. Living costs increasing. Grey Nomads can only achieve miracles, but not the impossible.

We will all be having "direct funerals" as there is no money left!

wombat50 · Veteran Member

The free campers who state that they always support the local business's, well the CP's are a business too and have lots of costs involved in keeping their business going. Most of them employ locals for various jobs at the park and if business drops down then there can be job losses which does affect the towns.
At the free camps where there are toilets and other amenities, who pays for the up keep of them, Councils, so the CP's pay rates which helps pay for the free campers to stay there.
I like to use free camp spots to when suitable but have no problem staying in CP's.

msg · Guru

brickies wrote:
Yes you are so right Blaze some people always want a free ride and tell us how much money they spend in these town , Just move on if you had read the report on Rockhampton case you would see that council make Caravan park supply services and council were not providing any service and if they did why should ratepayers money be ue to give outsider a free ride .

I have a small comment on this. "free ride" "Council were not providing any service" If the council is not providing any services, how is it a free ride to those who use the area? I have noticed that a lot of places with camps, the council is responsible to the rate payers to keep those unutilised areas serviced anyway, regardless of whether RVérs use them or not. The area is there for the benefit of everyone.

rockylizard · Guru

msg wrote:
brickies wrote:
Yes you are so right Blaze some people always want a free ride and tell us how much money they spend in these town , Just move on if you had read the report on Rockhampton case you would see that council make Caravan park supply services and council were not providing any service and if they did why should ratepayers money be ue to give outsider a free ride .
I have a small comment on this. "free ride" "Council were not providing any service" If the council is not providing any services, how is it a free ride to those who use the area? I have noticed that a lot of places with camps, the council is responsible to the rate payers to keep those unutilised areas serviced anyway, regardless of whether RVérs use them or not. The area is there for the benefit of everyone.

Gday...

Understand your comments completely msg.

However, have you ever stayed at Kershaw Gardens? The actual Gardens are extensive as the 'snip' below shows.

Kershaw 01.JPG

The "free" parking area where RVers are allowed to sleep is at the northern end - just south of that shopping centre shown as Kmart Rockhampton.

Kershaw 02.JPG

I can guarantee the area of Kershaw Gardens utilised by RVers would not be used by locals - other than as a dusty (or muddy) carpark - with absolutely no amenities let alone any other 'servicing' by council.

Cheers - John

msg · Guru

Yes I have stayed there on two occasions. You are right there is nothing provided.

There are loos a fair way away in the Gardens. However, Backpackers insisted on coming in after dark and on a couple of occasions, let go outside their van leaving TP on the ground. There were accusations that some were using the falls as a convenience.

Its close to the shopping centre over the road. Maybe, the locals will now use it as overflow parking. Comment on that, there seemed to be lots of parks from 9am to 4pm so I don't think staying overnight would have had an much of an effect on the locals enjoyment of the area.

Santa · Guru

msg wrote:
You are right there is nothing provided.

Like most things in life, you get exactly what you pay for. wink

msg · Guru

And that's all I expect. Bonus was being able to explore the gardens.

Tony Bev · Guru

I can only speak for myself
I appreciate a free camp, and in return, I do my best to help clean it up, and to spend some money in the local area

I will assume, that because the lawyers were successful, in closing down Kershaw Gardens free camp in Rockhampton, this will spread throughout the large town of Queensland

I do not have a solution for keeping any free camps open

Except to say, that it is up to us (the Grey Nomad type travellers), to :-

Try our best to pick up the rubbish.
This will show the locals that some of us do appreciate their efforts, of opening a free camp
Spend some money in the local area
Communicate to the local shopkeeper, that we stayed/staying at their free camp

I shall give one instance of a West Australian free camp, were travellers are not doing the right thing

There is a free camp behind the Bodallin roadhouse, on the Great Eastern Highway, (the only shop in the area)
The toilets near the free camp, are cleaned voluntary, by the roadhouse employees
They lock the toilets when the roadhouse closes at about 8 pm
They claim that very few travellers, who stay at the free camp, buy anything from the roadhouse

thomas01 · Senior Member

I find it interesting that free/freedom camping opponents always seem to use the argument that councils provide facilities at ratepayers expense and "freeloaders" come in and expect to reap the benefits for no outlay.

I pay council rates in area "A". I don't freecamp in area "A". I don't get any value from my outlay for the facilities I help pay for.

I do however freecamp in areas B,C & D, probably all the way through to Z. I get back some/most of my outlay. You live in area "B to Z". You don't freecamp in your areas. But you do freecamp in area "A". You get back some of your outlay.

Am I missing something here or are some people just whingers? All areas from A to Z are "Australia".

Why can't we just agree to share. What goes around, comes around.

Robert.

Desert Dweller · Guru

thomas01 wrote:
I find it interesting that free/freedom camping opponents always seem to use the argument that councils provide facilities at ratepayers expense and "freeloaders" come in and expect to reap the benefits for no outlay.

I pay council rates in area "A". I don't freecamp in area "A". I don't get any value from my outlay for the facilities I help pay for.

Robert.

You get your bins emptied every week, local roads maintained, use the public toilets in your local shopping strip, enjoy sporting facilities & local parks, all from your outlay locally.

montie · Guru

Kershaw Gardens was closed because it did not comply with Urban regulations..nothing to do with being "free".

Rockhampton Council simply did not comply with their own regulations at the camplng site and the Court ruled accordingly, now ordering RCC to pay full costs. I think a precedent has now been set and IMO the days of "free" or low cost camping in Urban areas are numbered.

Whilst I am all in favour of low cost camping, I can't see ratepayers in Urban areas wanting to provide expensive facilities that brings very little economic benefit as an offset. That's simply the reality.

Rural areas are a different story where compliancing is not as strict and the cost of providing low cost facilities are minimal but not free.

Phillipn · Guru

montie wrote:
Kershaw Gardens was closed because it did not comply with Urban regulations..nothing to do with being "free".
Rockhampton Council simply did not comply with their own regulations at the camplng site and the Court ruled accordingly, now ordering RCC to pay full costs. I think a precedent has now been set and IMO the days of "free" or low cost camping in Urban areas are numbered.
Whilst I am all in favour of low cost camping, I can't see ratepayers in Urban areas wanting to provide expensive facilities that brings very little economic benefit as an offset. That's simply the reality.
Rural areas are a different story where compliancing is not as strict and the cost of providing low cost facilities are minimal but not free.

We were in Tasmania 2 years ago. We stayed for a night at the FREE s/c camp in Campbelltown, their were approx 40 to 50 Rv`s their.

I was talking to a council worker, who said " thanks to you people staying here, other wise this town would be dead".

The people of Campbelltown are greatfull that people in RV`s stay and spend their money in town.

montie, try tell the people of Campbelltown that their is very little economic benefit to the town.

rockylizard · Guru

Phillipn wrote:
montie wrote:
Kershaw Gardens was closed because it did not comply with Urban regulations..nothing to do with being "free".
Rockhampton Council simply did not comply with their own regulations at the camplng site and the Court ruled accordingly, now ordering RCC to pay full costs. I think a precedent has now been set and IMO the days of "free" or low cost camping in Urban areas are numbered.
Whilst I am all in favour of low cost camping, I can't see ratepayers in Urban areas wanting to provide expensive facilities that brings very little economic benefit as an offset. That's simply the reality.
Rural areas are a different story where compliancing is not as strict and the cost of providing low cost facilities are minimal but not free.
We were in Tasmania 2 years ago. We stayed for a night at the FREE s/c camp in Campbelltown, their were approx 40 to 50 Rv`s their.
I was talking to a council worker, who said " thanks to you people staying here, other wise this town would be dead".
The people of Campbelltown are greatfull that people in RV`s stay and spend their money in town.
montie, try tell the people of Campbelltown that their is very little economic benefit to the town.

Gday...

To compare the economic benefit to the town of Campbelltown (pop 700) with the city of Rockhampton (pop 75,000) is a little misleading.

I doubt there would be anyone who would not agree that any number of RVs, let alone 40, parking in their area and spending a few $$ in their community is very beneficial.

There are 1,000s of towns around this wide, brown and inviting land that are very similar to Campbelltown and they all actively welcome the traveller - for the same reason as that council worker stated.

Utilising carparks as 'camping areas' in urban, residential areas is, and will continue to be, fraught with closure.

All of that notwithstanding, Rockhampton was closed, as Montie said, was due to the failure of the council to comply with its own regulations.

Cheers - stay well, travel safely and support our rural towns - John

montie · Guru

Phillipn wrote:
montie wrote:
Kershaw Gardens was closed because it did not comply with Urban regulations..nothing to do with being "free".
Rockhampton Council simply did not comply with their own regulations at the camplng site and the Court ruled accordingly, now ordering RCC to pay full costs. I think a precedent has now been set and IMO the days of "free" or low cost camping in Urban areas are numbered.
Whilst I am all in favour of low cost camping, I can't see ratepayers in Urban areas wanting to provide expensive facilities that brings very little economic benefit as an offset. That's simply the reality.
Rural areas are a different story where compliancing is not as strict and the cost of providing low cost facilities are minimal but not free.
We were in Tasmania 2 years ago. We stayed for a night at the FREE s/c camp in Campbelltown, their were approx 40 to 50 Rv`s their.
I was talking to a council worker, who said " thanks to you people staying here, other wise this town would be dead".
The people of Campbelltown are greatfull that people in RV`s stay and spend their money in town.
montie, try tell the people of Campbelltown that their is very little economic benefit to the town.

Phillip,

Not trying to tell those people anything, just stating the simple facts.

If a city council has now to spend $000's to make the site comply and then provide ongoing maintenance and supervision to provide a fee camp I doubt very much they will endear themselves to their ratepayers.

Rockhampton's main revenue comes from beef and mining so the grey nomad spend would hardly be material. That's the reality....nothing is free in this life.

2-Smiths · Veteran Member

Desert Dweller wrote:
thomas01 wrote:
I find it interesting that free/freedom camping opponents always seem to use the argument that councils provide facilities at ratepayers expense and "freeloaders" come in and expect to reap the benefits for no outlay.

I pay council rates in area "A". I don't freecamp in area "A". I don't get any value from my outlay for the facilities I help pay for.

Robert.
You get your bins emptied every week, local roads maintained, use the public toilets in your local shopping strip, enjoy sporting facilities & local parks, all from your outlay locally.

The rates also pay for the "upkeep"of Public spaces, some of which might be "un-serviced" free camps for self-contained RVs etc.

The previous poster's point is still vaild.

rockylizard · Guru

2-Smiths wrote:
Desert Dweller wrote:
thomas01 wrote:
I find it interesting that free/freedom camping opponents always seem to use the argument that councils provide facilities at ratepayers expense and "freeloaders" come in and expect to reap the benefits for no outlay.

I pay council rates in area "A". I don't freecamp in area "A". I don't get any value from my outlay for the facilities I help pay for.

Robert.
You get your bins emptied every week, local roads maintained, use the public toilets in your local shopping strip, enjoy sporting facilities & local parks, all from your outlay locally.
The rates also pay for the "upkeep"of Public spaces, some of which might be "un-serviced" free camps for self-contained RVs etc.
The previous poster's point is still vaild.

Gday...

Yes, rates provide, and maintain, public spaces for ratepayers ... which quite obviously will not be in use all the time by the ratepayers.

However, ratepayers lose their enthusiasm for the potential 'economic benefit' of travellers when their 'public spaces' are taken over by travellers (carparks used as places to sleep).

Prefer 03.jpg

Cheers - John

montie · Guru

2-Smiths wrote:
Desert Dweller wrote:
thomas01 wrote:
I find it interesting that free/freedom camping opponents always seem to use the argument that councils provide facilities at ratepayers expense and "freeloaders" come in and expect to reap the benefits for no outlay.

I pay council rates in area "A". I don't freecamp in area "A". I don't get any value from my outlay for the facilities I help pay for.

Robert.
You get your bins emptied every week, local roads maintained, use the public toilets in your local shopping strip, enjoy sporting facilities & local parks, all from your outlay locally.

The rates also pay for the "upkeep"of Public spaces, some of which might be "un-serviced" free camps for self-contained RVs etc.

The previous poster's point is still vaild.

All well and good but these "unserviced free camps" in urban areas must now comply with the required regulations that other ratepayers must do.

You cant have one set of rules for the Council and another for local caravan parks and business generally.

In densely populated areas you cannot have camping facilities without toilets and other necessary services.

msg · Guru

My home city Canberra abounds with large recreation areas with car parking for hundreds where Rvérs could park. Up until about 5 yrs ago I would have recommended them, saying you would be quite safe and no one will bother you. Not so now. Too many unsavoury people lurking at night these days. Just the way things are going. Sad because there are so many places that would make very agreeable camps.

So, if you are considering stealth camping in urban areas, consider your safety.

I have no problem with someone using the carparks overnight and do not consider them free loaders.

On the other hand, one of my first trips was to Emerald. I was appalled at the eyesore that was the free camp under the bridge. All those vans parked wherever they would fit. Not saying there was any rubbish, just that so many vans, it looked awful. Much better now they have restricted it to just a few places.

I also think that a lot of the agro to free camping was/is caused by backpackers. Crowding, noise, unsavoury practices. The councils did the only thing they could and banned it.

A comment on Rocky. I think putting up the signs saying this is a free camp for RVérs, listing all the rules to be abided was a mistake by the council. They should have just left it as unrestricted parking.

Also, free campers should not need to be provided showers, toilets etc. All they should expect from a free camp is a piece of ground to park. They need to provide their own services. and everyone, LEAVE NO TRACE.

dieseltojo · Senior Member

Just as an aside to this issue, take note that many have thought that the free camping along the Wool wash lagoon was shut. A friend is a local in rocky and even he thought it was closed.

What happened is that the Wool wash lagoon is closed for free camping from the old tropic of Capricorn line going south. The area to the north of that point is open and I would say easily 40 vans could park there.

I was there in this July 2018, and only a couple of vans took the opportunity. It is a wonderful riverside camp with zero facilities, which suites us. Maybe not others.

It seems that the local drinking lads were getting up the end there and leaving a huge mess and vandalizing the area. That area also has a few farm homes that were probably affected.

Any way it is worth the trip there of only a couple of Klm from the travel center to have a looksee. smile

roker · Veteran Member

blankstare ,hi desertdweller, how true .Just use station stays most of the time. I am all set up for camping off the beating track see the SEE THE REAL AUSTRALIA.

best wishes for Christmas and new year TAKE CARE ON THE ROAD cheers roker.

roker · Veteran Member

roker wrote:
,hi desertdweller, how true .Just use station stays most of the time. I am all set up for camping off the beating track see the SEE THE REAL AUSTRALIA.
best wishes for Christmas and new year TAKE CARE ON THE ROAD cheers roker.

its a long road with out a turn.old irish saying