Brooms Head caravan park resident wins over-55s case against council-What the Tribunal Ruling Means for Residents!

The Brooms Head caravan park over-55s case ended this week with a clear win for a resident. The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) overturned a Clarence Valley Council rule that would have stopped anyone under 55 from living permanently in a van at Brooms Head Holiday Park. The ruling matters well beyond one park on the NSW North Coast. It comes as permanent and semi-permanent residents across several council-run parks face eviction notices, and many of them worry about where they would live if they lost their sites.

What the Brooms Head Caravan Park Over-55s Case Was About

Clarence Valley Council set a special condition at the Brooms Head Holiday Park that would have limited permanent van sites to people aged 55 and over. The council introduced it while eviction notices for permanent and semi-permanent sites were being issued at parks in Iluka, Minnie Water, Wooli and Brooms Head last year. A resident challenged the condition at NCAT, which found it was not “fair and reasonable.”

Senior Member Katherine Merrick found the rule would harm the marketability and saleability of permanent sites. She also could not identify any clear and coherent purpose behind it. In her written decision she noted that the council had described the rule in different ways at different times: as required by legislation, as reflecting industry standards, as the result of industry advice, and as a way to shape the future character of the community.

Key Facts at a Glance

Why the Tribunal Found the Rule Unreasonable

The decision turned on two weaknesses. The first was practical. A permanent site with an age restriction is harder to sell, and the rule would also have blocked heirs under 55 from inheriting a site when an owner died. For many long-term residents, a van is their main asset, so a rule that narrows the pool of future buyers hits them directly.

The second weakness was the lack of a consistent rationale. Tony Everingham of the Clarence Valley Semi Permanent Van Group argued the policy was inconsistent as well. The council wanted future permanent residents to be over 55, yet it was also converting semi-permanent sites to tourist sites, and it proposed no age limit for visitors. In his words, the result could have been permanent residents scattered between tourist sites, with older residents living beside holiday families.

What Happens Next for Caravan Park Residents

The tribunal’s decision settles one rule at one park. It does not settle the wider dispute. Mr Everingham described the outcome as a small victory, and he said around 80 related cases are still before NCAT, with some being negotiated for settlement and others likely to proceed all the way through the tribunal. Seven cases have been resolved so far.

The council has previously said the eviction notices responded to growing visitor demand for tourist sites. The ABC reported that it had contacted Clarence Valley Council for comment on the latest decision.

Residents in a similar position can take a few sensible steps:

• Keep copies of site agreements, notices and any correspondence with the park operator.
• Note the deadlines on any notice, because tribunal time limits can be strict.
• Contact a tenants’ advocacy service or a community legal centre for advice specific to their situation.
• Consider joining a residents’ group, since shared cases can be easier to manage than individual ones.

SOURCE

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a council ban under-55s from living in a caravan park?
Not automatically. In this case, NCAT found the over-55s rule was not fair and reasonable, partly because no clear purpose could be identified for it. Each case depends on its own facts and the terms involved.

Does the ruling stop all caravan park evictions in Clarence Valley?
No. It overturned one specific rule at Brooms Head Holiday Park. About 80 cases over eviction notices are still before the tribunal.

How many residents live at Brooms Head Holiday Park?
The park has 52 designated residential sites. Thirty are occupied by permanent residents, and the other 22 are long-term casual sites.

Why did the council introduce the over-55s rule?
The council gave several explanations at different times, including legislation, industry standards, industry advice and the future character of the community. The tribunal found none of these showed a clear and coherent purpose.

Iklaina: Inside the Bronze Age Capital That Rewrote Early Greek History..