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

                                              13

[49]   First, the footprint of the High Street carpark is in the order of one hectare. The RV
       accommodation area consumes some, but not all of this area. Taking a broad view,
       this means the use takes up less than 4% of the total area of the park, and may be seen
       as inconsequential in percentage terms. That may be so, but the RV accommodation
       area is significant and scale.

[50]   The scale and intensity of the RV accommodation use does not paint a picture that it
       is subordinate, or subservient to the park. The evidence points to a contrary
       conclusion, establishing only a minor connection between the use and the park.
       Further, the evidence does not suggest there is a relationship, be it direct or indirect,
       between the park and the size and intensity of the RV accommodation use. Rather,
       the size and intensity of the use is consistent with the proposition it is separate from
       the park, and does not need to be co-located with it.

[51]   Second, as a matter of fact and degree, the provision of RV accommodation alters the
       underlying purpose for which Kershaw Gardens is used as a park. The augmentation
       of the purpose for which Kershaw Gardens has been, and is, used is one indicator RV
       accommodation is not an ancillary use.

[52]   Prior to the commencement of the RV accommodation use, the only purpose of the
       park was to provide passive recreation space for visitors, residents and tourists of
       Rockhampton. This purpose did not include the provision of accommodation for the
       travelling public in self-contained campervans or recreation vehicles.

[53]   The commencement, and continuation of RV accommodation, has augmented the
       purpose for which Kershaw Gardens is, and has been, made available for use by the
       public. It did so by introducing accommodation for the travelling public in
       circumstances where there is no functional or planning requirement for that
       accommodation to be located at Kershaw Gardens. As Mr Reynolds said, and I accept,
       whilst the location of Kershaw Gardens provides a practical opportunity for RV
       accommodation, this opportunity is not tied to the use of Kershaw Gardens as a park.

[54]   CPAQ submit the RV accommodation use introduced new impacts that did not exist
       when the land was used only as a park. This was said to represent a further indicator
       as to why the use was not ancillary. The specific impacts to which reference was made
       in the evidence, and submissions, include hygiene impacts, social impacts from
       activities in the park at night, impacts from the increased use of unsealed carpark
       areas, and impacts from grey water.

[55]   I accept, as a general proposition, that the identification of new impacts is a relevant
       consideration for characterising a use as dominant or ancillary, involving as it does
       matters of fact and degree. The identification of new impacts, however, are not
       determinative in this case. The matters of importance here are dealt with in paragraphs
       [42] to [47] above. The matters discussed therein establish, in my view, that RV
       accommodation is not an ancillary use of Kershaw Gardens as a major regional park.
       This finding is reinforced by the matters discussed in paragraphs [48] to [53] above.

[56]   The Council submits there are seven matters that demonstrate, as a matter of fact and
       degree, RV accommodation is ancillary to the use of Kershaw Gardens as a regional
       park, namely:

       (a)    the use falls within the words ‘and ancillary vehicle parking and other public
              conveniences’ in the definition of ‘park’ in the 2015 Planning Scheme;