Rover Park to be Closed by Council?

Submitted: Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:45
ThreadID: 81675 Views:6533 Replies:3 FollowUps:12
This Thread has been Archived
http://www.tenterfieldstar.com.au/news/local/news/general/tourism-park-faces-closure/1954194.aspx


Tourism park faces closure
MARIE LOW
29 Sep, 2010 04:00 AM
A SECOND Tenterfield Shire adventure tourism park will be issued with a notice to close as it prepares for a major event.

Tenterfield Shire Council this month found Rover Park, on the Bruxner Highway, had been operating 4WD tracks, trail bike tracks, a flying fox, waterslide and two-hole golf course, but was only approved as a camping site.

Council will issue Rover Park operators Hans and Heidi Hautle with a notice of intention to close, allowing just 14 days for the owners to convince them otherwise.

The park is scheduled to hold an Octoberfest event on October 2-4. Council estimated the event could attract 2000-3000 people.

Council general manager Jim Gossage said the notice of intention to close was unlikely to be issued ahead of the event. But he said any use of the facilities outside the existing approvals would be illegal.

Mr Hautle said he had been shocked by council’s decision.

“Council didn’t have all the facts,” he said.

Mr Hautle said a further development application would be submitted, but he had been unaware that they had been operating without the correct approvals.

“Nothing is new – we have had the flying fox for six years and the water slide for three years,” he said.

“Council inspected the park about one-and-a-half years ago and everything was hunky-dory then. They helped us to bitumen the road.”

Mr Hautle said Rover Park would still hold the Octoberfest event.

The notice to close comes about nine months after council closed adventure park Emu Creek Extreme Retreat for non-compliance with council regulations.

The owners’ Blair and Melly Maxwell’s negotiations with council to reopen Emu Creek has prompted an angry response from neighbours, with police called to an incident at the July council meeting. The park has reopened, but not for camping or other accommodation.

Council officers noted during council discussions about Emu Creek that similar operators would be investigated to ensure they were meeting council requirements.

Legal advice to council about Rover Park stated: “It is clear in our view that the current activities being conducted at the park take it well outside the concept of `camping ground’ for which the approval is held…

“… the activities at the park currently being conducted are clearly outside the terms of the current consent and are therefore unlawful.”

Among legal concerns listed were:

- an illegal “shed/dwelling house” on the site

- compliance with Building Code of Australia requirements of a number of sheds and cabins

- safety issues concerning equipment, including the flying fox and waterslide

- fire safety compliance.

Councillor John Macnish told council these were serious compliance issues.

“You can’t build a house and put the DA (development application) in after you have moved in,” Cr Macnish said. “What we are saying is it’s ok to put the DA in when you are finished. I don’t think that’s acceptable.

“It leaves us open to serious legal issues.

“I want to know why it’s taken so long for something to be done. This has been operating for many, many years.”

Councillor Lucy Sullivan said she believed council needed to follow legal advice.

“If we didn’t, then we would be doing something very, very foolish,” she said.

Mayor Toby Smith said he believed the owners of Rover Park had been cooperating with council and had “admitted to some inadvertent errors”.

Council voted seven to two to issue the notice, with Councillors Smith and Lawrie West voting against the motion.
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: rumpig - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:48

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 08:48
it would be a shame to see this place closed for good if it happens, when they aren't holding an event, it is a lovely place to visit and drive around.

below is the waterfall on their property, very beautiful spot for sure.

AnswerID: 431955

Reply By: Member - Old Girl (QLD) - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 09:06

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 09:06
A load of crap. Councils have a lot to answer for all over the country. Close this close that. Do they realise the tourism will be taken away from the region also. They are so quick to jump. Why not work with people and we all might hold more respect for them. Grrrrr
AnswerID: 431957

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 09:51

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 09:51
Don't tar all those who work for the Local Government with the same brush ;)

I actually work for the LG here in Chinchilla as one of their Building Certifiers, we are currently running an amiesty period for all ratepayers for illegal dwellings located throughout the newly amalgmated shire.

I have done in excess of 50 free on-site inspections of what the owners call a house. Of that 50, about 15 are actual houses, the remainder have been sheds of varying degrees of soundness and safety.

In all that I have inspected I have only condemned 2, many more have been borderline but I have negotiated with the owners in order for them to undertake the required work to upgrade the "dwelling" to a standard that can meet the basic Structural and safety requirements that I am bound by.

Every person that I have dealt with has been suprised that I have not been heavy handed and pleased that I was approachable to discuss the issues in their environment (their "home").

I think it is easier to meet and discuss the issues as some of the areas I go are not safe i.e there has been instances of other people being shot at due to entering the wrong property.

The NSW Planning and Building Acts are different to QLD but I have had experience with the NSW laws. I would hope that the LG has discussed the issues with the Owners of the park prior to the issue of the Notice. If this is the case then I would think that the owner of the park has not heeded the previous requests of the Council.

Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702766

Follow Up By: Fiona & Paul - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:00

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:00
Good stuff Sir Kev, it's really beneficial when a direct response such as yours puts us all in the picture about what goes on within local government.

Now if only you could take that approach when talking state of origin.

Paul H

Paul H
OZ Downunder

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702770

Follow Up By: Member - Old Girl (QLD) - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:16

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:16
Kev Chinchilla is lucky you look after them.
0
FollowupID: 702773

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:56

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:56
It isn't just Chinchilla ;)

I have done lots of work in the Tara area where the locals are struggling to compete with the Coal Seam Gas exploration.

It takes time to build their trust, I was doing 2 of the previous mentioned inspections a month, now I am doing anything up to 10 per week with a waiting list of about a month as I can only allocate 2 days a week to the Tara area, as I have other work to do in the Chinchilla, Miles and Wandoan regions. Word is spreading which is good as it is the best form of advertising, the more houses I can assist in becomming safe the better really.

As I have previously stated in regards to the OP about the park, I am sure the notice to close was a last resort to ensure that the required safety measures are met, as the Council has knowledge that there are areas of non compliance in regards to safety then a Coroner will not look nicely upon the Council for not taking appropriate action, if something happened to a customer/visitor of the Park.
It is a very fine line to tread, but in some cases comming down heavy handed is the only option left.

Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702774

Follow Up By: Isuzumu - Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 19:39

Saturday, Oct 02, 2010 at 19:39
Those of us who have nothing to worry about will have nothing to worry about.
Those of us who have something to worry about will have something to worry about.
Cheers
Annie
0
FollowupID: 702812

Follow Up By: Ray - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:13

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:13
Remember YOU elect councillors (if you bother to vote) and you can unelect councillors.
0
FollowupID: 702829

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:17

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 09:17
Councillors also have a legal responsibility to protect the general public as well, it shouldn't matter who is elected, the bottom line is there is illegal activities being undertaken.


Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702831

Follow Up By: rumpig - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:01

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:01
and hopefully those councillors are working with the park owners to try and keep this place open (like you have mentioned you are doing with property owners already). more and more places are being closed to 4wder's, we need places like this to remain open, not be closed down.
0
FollowupID: 702832

Follow Up By: Member - Old Girl (QLD) - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:04

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:04
Ray who are you referring to.
0
FollowupID: 702833

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:27

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 10:27
Rumpig,

Like I have already stated it is hard to make an informed comment without both sides of the story. It could be quite possible that the Council has infact been working with the Park owners.

Legal action is often the last resort and has to be passed by the Councilliors before proceeding, as has happened in this instance. It is often after months, if not years of negiotiation between Council and the owners as the correct preceedings must have been followed before such heavy handed measures can be taken.

Also it could also be media hype, in stating that the owners have to close within 14 days. It may well be that they have to cease operation of the non approved activities within 14 days and submitt the necessary applications etc for Council approval of those non approved activities.

I also would like to say that I am neither for or against the closure, I am just giving an insight to how LG works here in QLD (again processes vary in NSW)


Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702836

Follow Up By: rumpig - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 14:20

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 14:20
MEDIA...HYPE...what you talking about?...lol
0
FollowupID: 702853

Follow Up By: Sir Kev & Darkie - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 14:41

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 14:41
hehehehehehe

I forgot, the reporters always right ;)


Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 702855

Reply By: bgreeni - Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 16:15

Sunday, Oct 03, 2010 at 16:15
Looks to me like someone may have lodged a complaint with council about the activities. In that case council may be forced to proceed according to the letter of the law. Anyone operating a business outside there consent is asking for problems.
AnswerID: 432045

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)