AN application for a nature-based caravan park at a resident’s rural property was approved at the Shire of Chittering’s May ordinary council meeting.

Bindoon resident Peter Easey submitted a deputation in support for his application for a nature-based caravan park.

Mr Easey said he and his family had spent more than 20 years restoring the block he had purchased in 2000 from the neglected state it had been left in.

“We raised our children there, instilling in them a deep respect for the unique flora and fauna on the property,” he said.

“Our eldest daughter was so inspired by growing up on this land that she went on to earn a degree in environmental management.

“Our proposal to host self-contained travellers through low impact camping platforms such as Hipcamp is born entirely out of this passion.”

Mr Easey said the proposal will address the concerns raised from public submission and wetland protection, heavy earthworks, waste and management of noise levels and other impacts were all within their plans for the site.

“We’ve spent more than two decades transforming a wasteland into a pristine natural sanctuary, and we will continue to look after it,” he said.

“We have worked transparently with the shire’s planning team and we wish to thank them for their detailed assessment of the proposal, their consideration of the public submissions and their favourable recommendation.

“We accept conditions one to 11 of the officer recommendation noting that these conditions appropriately limit impacts on the surrounding area in accordance with the campground management plan.

“We have concerns about condition 15 which imposes a two-year time limit as this will affect the ongoing viability of the business.

“We respectfully request that council move a motion to approve the application without condition 15.

“We respectfully ask council to support our vision for sustainable tourism in Chittering.”

Cr John Curtis spoke to the motion as the mover.

“I believe that we should support this,” he said.

“Business tourist operations bring money to the shire and it aligns with our community and our council plan.”

Cr Curtis said their willingness to comply with the multiple amendments earned them a tick and their proposal helped bring more accommodation to the shire.

“We always want accommodation in the town, but we’ve got nothing.

“Now, these two people, they want to do something constructive and let people enjoy our environment up in the Chittering shire.”

Cr Curtis said an overnight stay proposal that was brought to council months earlier that was refused didn’t help support the shire’s capability to drive tourism.

“We can’t keep knocking these short stay accommodations,” he said.

“I’m fully supportive of this.”

Cr Nicholas Grayer also spoke to the motion and outlined why a two-year lifespan for the approval was important, despite the applicant seeking lifetime approval.

“I do understand about that note 15 (in their deputation) that they want it for an approval for life,” he said.

“I believe that 24 months is crucial.

“We can then come back and see if there is an effect on the locals in that area because they are all on large properties where they don’t want tourists either, so we need to take them into consideration.”

Cr Foulkes-Taylor spoke against the motion and said while the shire should look at more tourism opportunities, in her view, the proposal was not suitable for an agricultural resource zone.

“It introduces a commercial tourism activity into an area intended for rural production,” she said.

“That shift has real implications for local amenity and rural character (and) concerns raised by nearby land owners are valid.

“Even at a small scale, a campground brings noise, traffic, and transient activity that changes the nature of the locality.

“The reliance on self-contained vehicles doesn’t remove those impacts.

“The site has known constraints and a temporary approval doesn’t eliminate the potential for cumulative impacts, especially when key elements like waste management rely heavily on visitor behaviour.”

Cr Foulkes-Taylor said bushfire risk and the landscape being unfamiliar increased risk for visitors, which was another reason why she did not support the recommendation.

Cr Kylie Hughes said she also did not support the development application as she was concerned the development may “never lawfully operate”.

“The shire’s own officers acknowledged the proposal likely does not meet the definition of a nature-based park… due to the proximity of dwellings on Cockatoo Drive and Windemere Way,” she said.

“A development approval from this council means nothing if the applicant can’t obtain the license required to actually open the gates.

“I believe that would be to the jeopardy of the owner going down this route when they’re unlikely to get that approval.”

Cr Hughes said complaints about noise, wetland conservation, the constraints the operation will face and environmental impacts meant she couldn’t support the application.

Deputy shire president Mary Angus said the application’s small scale and consideration of the shire’s amendments, of nearby residents and based on information supplied by the proponent, the application was worthy of approval.

She said that however the 24-month approval clause was there to stay, despite the applicant’s wishes, as it was important for the shire to be able to review the approval.