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

                                              14

       (b)    the RV accommodation is subordinate to the park use in terms of area, and
              there is no evidence to establish that the intensity of the activity is
              disproportionate to the use of the otherwise very popular regional park;

       (c)    the RV accommodation is located on the same premises as the park;

       (d)    there is a functional relationship between the RV accommodation and the park.
              They are collectively a place for passive recreation for the users of the RV
              accommodation;

       (e)    the number of vehicles parked in the demarcated area for RV accommodation
              is in all respects, quite ordinary;

       (f)    the style of vehicle, campervans and caravans, is quite ordinary for a regional
              park located on the Bruce Highway, where it can be expected that such
              vehicles would call into the park; and

       (g)    people stopping overnight to rest before continuing their journey is a recreation
              activity within the context of a regional park.

[57]   The submissions summarised in paragraph [56](b) to (g) above can be dealt with
       briefly.

[58]   With respect to subparagraph (b), I accept the RV accommodation area is
       considerably smaller than the total area of the park. However, for the reasons given
       in paragraphs [49] and [50] above, I do not accept the size of the use, or the suggested
       lack of evidence about intensity, establishes it is an ancillary use. The size and
       intensity of the RV accommodation use are, in my view, one of a number of indicators
       that suggest it is a separate, and independent use from the park.

[59]   I accept the submission in subparagraph (c).

[60]   As to the submission in subparagraph (d), I accept there is a connection between RV
       accommodation and the park, but the connection is weak. The connection is not
       sufficient to establish the use is ancillary to the park for the reasons set out in
       paragraphs [42] to [53] above.

[61]   I do not accept the submission in subparagraph (e). The submission is not established
       on the evidence and is no more than a general assertion. Mr Loos, who appeared on
       behalf of the Council, did not identify the evidence relied upon to support the
       submission.

[62]   The submissions in subparagraphs (f) and (g) are, in my view, of no assistance to the
       determination of the central issue. They are, again, general assertions without support
       in the evidence. At its highest, the evidence included references to other examples in
       regional Queensland where parking is provided for recreational vehicles in
       conjunction with public open space. The evidence did not include an analysis of each
       use. Nor did the evidence include an analysis of the planning controls applicable to
       each case to establish the examples were comparable to the present case. The lack of
       such evidence means the submissions made on behalf of Council in this respect are
       not persuasive.