The surge in demand for campsites from travellers has led one northern NSW council to terminate its agreements with those staying at its caravan parks on a longer term basis … and it’s not gone down well with those affected.
Back in March, Clarence Valley Council issued notice to holders of casual holiday vans in Brooms Head, Iluka, Minnie Water and Wooli Holiday Parks, advising of the termination of long term (casual occupation) agreements.
The council said that, under a long-term (casual occupation) agreement, holders were permitted to use the site for up to 180 days per year, and that meant that, for the other six months of the year, they sat vacant and were unable to be used by other visitors.
Changes are afoot at Brooms Head Holiday Park. PIC: Clarence Valley Council
Clarence Valley Council, General Manager, Laura Black said the demand from visitors for tourist sites had grown significantly over the past decade.
“These sites are on public land and it’s important that all visitors to the Holiday Parks have the same opportunity to use these sites when holidaying with their families and friends,” she said. “We’ve been able to accommodate casual agreements for some time but, with greater demand, we have made the decision to return these sites for all to use.”
Ms Black said that as the sites could not be used as a permanent residence and all users were required to have a primary place of residence elsewhere offsite, it was not a case of ‘evicting’ residents.
She said the council was providing 110 days notice to terminate agreements and waiving all rental fees from March 13 to June 30, although under the Act, only 90 days notice was required.
“Some of these agreements have been in place for many years, and we realise that people may be disappointed or upset by this decision,” Ms Black said. “Council is taking steps to assist holders of casual agreements by increasing the notice period by 20 days, waiving fees while still occupying these sites and has offered to assist with removal of any semi-permanent structures that users don’t wish to take with them.”
The council said it welcomed all users of casual agreements to continue using the parks, under the same booking terms and access as all other visitors.
However, the ABC reports that the group of about 100 tenants have been fighting the council’s decision to move them on to make way for short-term tourists. It says the matter is currently before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
This year, Clarence Valley Council has also made sites adjacent to the beach at Brooms Head Holiday Park unavailable for booking, and says this move marks the first step in returning the foreshore to the broader community.
It said the sites, which were originally small and designed for simpler camping experiences in the mid-to-late 1900s, are not suitable for the larger, self-contained RVs and caravans that now dominate camping in the 2020s.
“Over time, camping on the foreshore has evolved,” said Ms Black. “Council made the decision to reduce the availability of these sites as part of an approach to ultimately phase out camping in this location.”
Are you a Grey Nomad member yet? Click here to find out about the discounts, competitions and other benefits on offer.
Unfortunately for some progress is unavoidable and I agree with the council on their decision
Seems reasonable to me. If the casual occupation agreements were clear at the time of signing, the council should be free to act in accordance with those contracts. An excuse of “I never thought they would exercise their rights under the agreement” seems naive and unenforceable to me.
Agree
I agree with councils position of removing long term residents. The land is owned by the local government and ratepayers. It would be a more equitable share of limited space.
The people using the sites have had access for 180 days per year. The sites can not be expected to be vacant for the rest of the time.
These people have had a dream run, they do not own the sites. These facilities need to be shared with others.
It is similar to people who book the same prime beachfront sites every year like it is their right. The councils should cease this practice. These sites need to be issued out on a random basis so everyone has a bite of the cherry.
Fred, I agree with you, everyone deserves a bite of the Cherry.
Agree.. see it in all states. We were in a free camp last year for 6 days when a man turned up telling us we were in his spot. Turned out he hadn’t been there for 4 yrs.
But he still put up 3 tents & a huge camp fire beside our van.
No it’s not right, these are peoples homes and they were there before us tourists, shame on CP that are doing this…..
They are not permanent homes these are semi permanent 180 days allowed per year.
But they pay for the whole year not just the 180 days
they are long term casual vans, not residential vans, there is a difference. They pay to be able to use the site for 180 days maximum per year, and leave their van on site. They do not own any part of the land at all.
Better read the article again – they are not permanent homes. A requirement of the agreement is that they had to have a principal residence elsewhere. They can only use the site for 180 days per year, so that ties up the site for others for the other unused 185 days of the year.
I guess that begs the question about what is a permanent residence. I believe some of those people who have one of the spots at the caravan park have their caravan as a permanent residence and have to move around for the six months that they can’t be in the park. I think this is another case of forcing homelessness in the sense of not having a base to depend on.
Again spot on not everyone is blessed to be able to own a home as the banks won’t look at someone who struggles to work ..I live in a tourist park in 12 months there has been 10 campers call in there are plenty of space not sure but I pray my little home that I brought from the tourist park stays my little home.
But the wealthy seem to still judge the not so wealthy no matter what
Sorry misread the article.
They are still paying the site fees for the full year, not 180 days.
Totally agree
I agree with the council these agreement’s at all caravan Parks Australia wide. is not for ever till you pass away. There long term until there not .
Honestly it’s about time these caravan parks were cleaned out of casual semi permanent people. It’s hard to book a spot at wooli Minnie waters and and iluka during holiday periods . My family has had many generations holiday in these places.
Its school holidays now and the Iluka caravan park is no where near full.
Do the people who can only use the site for 180 days pay a yearly fee or only for 180 days? If they are paying for a year the council must be going to charge casual users more or else the monetary result would be the same.
I have had a caravan in one park that was under the 180 day rule with a yearly fee and later I also lived permanently in a park along with some other 40 permanent residents. Our daily rate was comparable to travellers. Plus we were a real little friendly community
They pay a fee every month and in Covid still had to pay the fees and could not use their vans. They were the ones who kept the parks afloat without them some parks wouldn’t have survived
Absolutely Short memories!!!
Restoring public access to the foreshore is great news, well done Council. It corrects a historical mistake and is a step in the right direction for coastal communities.
Regulation is pretty clear. Why not expand park networks to cope with demand.Increase demand no surprise.
I Have Some Of The Best Memories Of This Park As A YoungnTeen. Travelling & Camping With My Grandma In Her Sweet Old Combie. My Ger Was Not Your Typical one … She Loved Cars & Drove Like Her Days Working At Race Tracs In The US. We Ate Delishious Brownies With A Twist Lisented To Sex Pistols, Violent Femms, Santna & More Laughter & Love Rocked That Park For Days. We Basically Had The Whole Park To Ourselves & Parked Right On The Waters Edge. One Of Our Bested Anual Van Trips Ever !!! Thanks For The Memories Ger & Brooms Head !!!
We are full time for now in a caravan park in Fremantle WA. This is the one thing that bothers me having no wear to live full time in our caravan.
Maybe the people in this caravan park need to park all there caravans around the council offices in protest.
Agree I’d be in on that but would they help us all that have been promised our permanent home then say no you have in what happens
They can’t as they wouldn’t be able to move them
It’s a hard call with the population & homeless growing
All about the greedy developers & no empathy for people struggling, surly there is a solution .council u r non thinking people like the govt that dictates to us our rights,
So true
Nothing to do with so called greedy developers. Caravan parks are designed for travellers on a short term basis. This clean out of semi permanent vans that are only used for half the year is long overdue.
I remember that when we camped in tourist parks growing up and seen the “Permanent Residents” we would thought
“Wow they’re lucky”. **Not jealously**
And they were all lovely people.
Yes, stay pay the rent, then a say – no actually we changed our mind!
We want the all money, but you can’t stay after 180 days? Sound like greedy double dipping to me.
I totally agree with the Council’s decision. If the semi-permanents want to continue using a particular park, let them compete with every other tourist for a site. The only people that will be ‘disadvantaged’ are the ones that are no longer able to quickly relocate their ‘caravan’.
Whilst onsite owners are only permitted to stay180 days annually, they pay fees for the whole year.
In other parks transitioning away from permanent onsite to tourists sites, the vacated sites remain vacant except for school holidays.
I started holiday in the lower clarence area in 1968 and i continue to to do so to this day.
As a regular visitor to Brooms Head Holiday park i believe the Clarance vally council would do better to upgrade fertcilitises in the existing parks eg modernisation of amenities, providing proper camp kitchens ,fixing existing fencing and spraying bindies on the grass sites. Before evicting any residents to make way for more camp-sites in parks that are extremely rundown and neglected. The demands on these parks is seasonal, apart from long weekends and school holiday’s.Council might consider the immediate issues befor wasting anymore of rate payers money .
Don’t forget that these people are paying for 360 days but only allowed to stay 180days as agreed due to pure greed they are been crucified by another Government department decision for the sake of a few hundred Dollars and to think this is supposed to be a free country. NOT anymore it’s a capalist attitude by these people that are supposed to be for the people
Councils are not part of the government and should not be dictating what caravan parks are doing or not doing! I believe if these people have signed contracts they should be allowed to stay, is all about profit and where can councils make the most money! It’s time people started talking about all the injustices governments are now enforcing! Councils are not written into the government they are a soul sucking company that lazy governments put there so they didn’t have to work so hard, get rid of councils or make them friendly to the towns they serve!!
some who are elderly and dont have the means or other family to help them cannot just up everything and leave.this is just another case where Council loved to flex their powern if which they far too much of
For all of those that are pro Council need lessons in empathy while you sit in your comfortable homes and totally unaffected. Show some compassion. Don’t you see the power imbalance here!!!
Im in full agreement with the councils decision on this I and my family are avid campers and love the beachside parks most of all dont know how many times we have been away say at Cotton Tree during a holiday period (have children) and people where unable to secure a plot for a tent with the family but half of the ramshackle structures are sitting there empty, this is an unfair abuse of a public owned asset I feel that all should be resumed so all have a fair go at enjoying our parks.
I guess those people you speak of could book and pay for a site all year around like the owners of the “ramshackle structures” have.
Why doesn’t the councils n government just puy in a few more caravan parks but also the long termers should not have prime positions people visiting the area would love a good view too
If it’s on public land why the hell are we paying to stay there then????? What a rort!
There are over 163,000 Australians that are homeless without moving these people from where they are to make the problem even bigger
It’s going to end up like Lismore, where it was flooded and people, and now moving into the flooded homes as squatters
Unless the council know where they are going to re-locate these people, they should leave them there until they have places for them to go
You closed all the beach sites 34 of.for day use to none paying people now you need to recoup lost money
With all the homelessness out there I thinks it’s disgusting
So people that have nowhere else to live should be removed so govt can make more money.
What next, it’s ok for people that have good jobs can afford to rent houses or units. But that’s not everyone some people living hand to mouth.
We are going backwards and it looks like it will get worse before it gets better. Especially with people being asked to leave long term caravan parks. The selfish people need their little holidays. Who cares where the permanent not permanent people get to live
So as I understand it the vans occupy the sites 365 days a year but can only be lived in for 180 days.
This arrangement must have been made when parks had low occupancy rates for it is a rather foolish one open to abuse.
If I had entered into such an arrangement I surely should realise it could not last if someone wanted to take the park in a different direction.
Whilst I have sympathy for both sides of the argument I must take the side of the tourist.
Hopefully more sites for tourists helps to keep prices down ( providing they turn up of course).
There appears to be a boom at the moment, lets hope it lasts.
I feel that if you want to live in a caravan park permanently you should check out the by-laws or rules before you move your van in. If the council decrees that you only have 180 days a year for your site then thats what youre allowed. If you want to live full time choose a retirement caravan park like my friend has & she knows that she will not be evicted.
This is a decision to accomodate the weekend warriors. The rest of the week the sites will be unused unless the full time travellers and grey nomads occupy them. The revenue will be much the same as the permanents still pay fees. If it was not for these permanent sites some of these caravan parks would not of been viable in bygone years.
We fully agree with the Councils logic and decision. Have been travelling for the last 20 years, and often unable to book into parks that have many semi-permanent sites that are not being used. These people do have another place of residence so terminating an agreement is not creating homelessness. Tourists should have year round access and not be excluded by casual siters. All Councils should take this action to free-up all sites.
Its not the local’s fault that there are so many tourists now. Why should they be evicted after just living minding their own business for years, some working in the places tourists want to go, like cafes, pubs, bakeries, bait shops etc.
What is unfair is that people pay Thousands $ for these sites. Perhaps 10-20K. So the council should buy the owners out. Yes the council has the right, but be fair.
As long as they are returned as siites and NOT cabins
Is there any money returned to the semi permanent owner from the park after being told to move on as there would have been a purchase price at the beginning ?
I know several of the people at Brooms Head, they are elderly and have nowhere to go. It’s about making more money over the busy periods.
Fine as people pass on remove the homes (as they have been doing) but with the housing issues what’s more important people having a holiday or housing our elderly.
The council just closed 20+ camping site along the waterfront and now making people homeless.
This 180 days a year is not correct, the people I know live there and pay a rental.
About time. Great news and well done Council. Let’s hope other councils follow suit.
Maybe council could build a long term caravan park for those who want/need it and return the beach front parks to the tourists. Then if the long termers want a good outlook they could compete with the rest.
I think that everybody is missing the vital point about semi permanent sites. In low occupancy months it is these sites that pay for the upkeep of the park. I have seen parkes less than half full of travellers vans in the low and shoulder periods for holidaying. It appears that the council believe they will get a monetary windfall by excluding these sites , I wish them luck. Also to those that believe there will always be available sites in peak times you had better book more than 12 months in advance.
For someone with no soul & earning big money every year I suppose it’s an easy choice, discusting but easy.
Out of holiday season you could shoot a gun through the camp ground & not hit a sole, so why does she think there are no spots left.
The casual traveller only pays for the short time they are here & the long time casuals pay for the full year & are only allowed to be occupied for half the year so why are they being charged for the whole year. I have my suspicion there is something else afoot, like maybe being taken over by one of the big c/van consortium’s this is only a guess but I did google inspirations & the first name that came up was Brooms Head Holiday Park, then I googled the inspirations website where all the parks were listed & Brooms Head was amongst the names, although it didn’t have their name in as a heading like all the other’s, it looked like it may be an up & coming, call me a conspiracy theorist but it does give you food for thought.