RFI - Appendix 2 - Caravan Parks v Rockhampton Regional Council Anor 2018 QPEC 52 · MCU19/0117

                                               12

[42]   An ancillary use is, by definition, one that is subservient to a principal use. The very
       nature of the subservient and dominant relationship requires the former to serve, or
       take its colour from, the latter. This is not the case with the RV accommodation use.
       It does not take its colour from the park. Nor does it serve the park. There is no
       relationship of dominance and subservience.

[43]   The purpose of the use is to provide a form of accommodation for tourists and
       travellers. This is not a use that is aligned with a park. As I have already said in
       paragraph [33] above, a further purpose of the use is to provide an opportunity for the
       travelling public to be accommodated in a central location, to encourage them to
       patronise local food and retail facilities. This purpose does not take its colour from
       the park, nor does the use serve the purpose of the park. Whilst the use is conveniently
       co-located with the park, I am satisfied there is no special need, or planning
       requirement for it to be co-located with the park.

[44]   The evidence establishes the existing use of Kershaw Gardens comprises two separate
       purposes that coexist. The position was correctly stated by Mr Reynolds, the town
       planning witness called by CPAQ, who described the functional relationship between
       the park and RV accommodation in this way:

                “…In my opinion, the relationship between the park and the camping is
                minor and inconsequential to the character of the use. The park is merely a
                convenience. The RV parking only serves the use of the park in a trivial way,
                as the primary purpose of the use is to sleep overnight.”

[45]   The identification of a minor and inconsequential relationship as referred to by Mr
       Reynolds, does not of itself establish that the park and RV accommodation uses are
       separate and distinct uses. This will turn on the facts of each case. It is the strength of
       the connection or relationship that will be important, involving matters of fact and
       degree.

[46]   As a matter of fact and degree, the strength of the connection or relationship as
       between the park and RV accommodation use is limited in a functional sense, and is
       more a relationship of convenience. Convenience in this case is not an indicator of a
       dominant and subservient relationship. It is, in my view, a weak connection, and is
       equally demonstrative of two separate planning units that are located on the same
       premises.

[47]   An example of two separate planning units on the same premises, having a
       relationship of convenience can be readily identified. One such example is a tower
       with residential accommodation above a podium containing commercial uses, such
       as shops and restaurants. The residential and commercial uses are separate planning
       units, but located on the same premises. Residents in the tower above the podium
       may, from time to time, patronise the facilities in the podium below. The podium uses
       would be convenient for the residents. Equally, some residents may choose not to
       patronise the facilities in the podium below. The convenience of the facilities in the
       podium is the product of its co-location with the residential use. The uses still remain
       separate planning units despite the convenience of co-location.

[48]   The absence of a dominant and subservient relationship in this case is further
       reinforced by two particular features of the evidence.