Livingstone Shire Council sticks solid with its decision on nudist reserve, Savannah Park Retreat

A Capricorn Coast nudist retreat fighting a long-running battle has been delivered a blow. Here’s the latest.

A couple enjoys a nudist retreat in Queensland. Generic image. Picture: Robyne Cuerel.

A Capricorn Coast nudist retreat has been delivered a blow in its long-running bid to have council charges reduced to what it believes is a fair amount.

The case put forward by the owners of Savannah Park Retreat was back on the Livingstone Shire Council table on Tuesday as councillors attempted to finalise the saga once and for all.

It was three years ago that the nudist retreat’s owners, Charles Rogers and Allyson Neave, made their first deputation to the council, seeking $60,000-plus in infrastructure charges be reduced because they deemed that figure excessive.

Savannah Park Retreat was established in 2000 and Mr Rogers and Ms Neave purchased it in late 2017 after visiting on a holiday from their hometown of Dubbo.

Part of Mr Rogers and Ms Neave’s argument, which was raised again at Tuesday’s October council meeting, was that they were the third owners of the Cobraball Road tourist business and they effectively inherited the problem of it being non-compliant with the council’s regime.

As has been the case with other businesses in the shire over the past few years, some have been found to be operating without the correct council approvals and Livingstone has had to remedy this on a case-by-case basis retrospectively.

The site of Savannah Park Retreat at the Capricorn Coast. Image source: Livingstone Shire Council documents.

In relation to Savannah Park Retreat, Livingstone decided in March this year to provide Mr Rogers and Ms Neave with some relief in the form of a 30 per cent discount on the original infrastructure charges sought.

That meant their amount payable to the council was $44,604 and they were given two years to finalise that.

But the business partners were not happy with the figure, and they championed for the original charges to be reduced to one third ($21,240) on the basis that they were the third owners of the business.

What councillors had before them on Tuesday was a recommendation from council officers to stick with the decision that was made at the March meeting, deeming the previous outcome was “still reasonable”.

One of the councillors to speak in support of remaining with the status quo was Cr Nigel Hutton.

Cr Nigel Hutton.

“When it comes to infrastructure charges which is what we’re discussing today, these are the contributions that every development makes to the common infrastructure of the community,” Cr Hutton said.

“So we recognise that a property that’s developed in the urban area pays a series of infrastructure charges (that) relates to parks and gardens, relates to roads, relates to other items.

“In a rural setting, they don’t pay all of those charges because they are recognised as being removed somewhat from some of those common infrastructure needs.

“However, there is a couple that they do contribute to and this charge that we have before us is reflective of what those charges are for the number of accommodations that they have on their site.

“Unfortunately for these people (Mr Rogers and Ms Neave), as we know, that they’ve been having 20 years of access to these common facilities or common access points, yet because of the lack of diligence by previous operators... they never paid the charges that were due to the community.

“So for 20 years the community’s been taking on board this burden.

“I commend (council) officers for the actions that they’ve taken... we’ve actually voted on this motion before and said we recognise that 30 per cent’s a good reduction.

“So I would suggest that we re-confirm our opinion and view that we previously expressed, and allow both our officers and obviously the applicant to continue on with their lives and their successful businesses.”

Councillor Andrea Friend.

Cr Andrea Friend was the only councillor to speak against the recommendation from council’s officers.

“I suppose, I’m speaking against because the owners are the third owners - they inherited this,” Cr Friend said.

“They have been under compliance and when they found that they were under compliance, they went ‘oh, ok, well perhaps we weren’t aware’ - I can’t say.

“So, they’ve gone through the motion, they’ve put their application in, and the infrastructure that has been constantly used for the last 20 years, the community facilities, is continuing to be used.

“And I don’t think that we should place this great burden on these people for trying to do the right thing by council.

“And I do agree that they should only have to pay a third in this particular instance, as we take every case on its own merit here at the (council) table.

“Also, I do agree that we do need to have a re-look at some of these charges, infrastructure charges, in the future - 30 per cent higher than other councils is a tremendous percentage.

“So I just don’t wish to burden these owners of this particular nature park.”

Cr Glenda Mather spoke in support of the recommendation from council’s officers.

Glenda Mather.

“If this activity has been undergone in the last 20 years, I’d say that they’ve probably had a bonus already,” Cr Mather said.

“If my memory serves me correctly, they have a bitumen road to their door, already.

“And if these are new owners, I would strongly suggest they knew about the non-compliance before they bought into it, and they knew about the previous correspondence with the previous owners.

“So I don’t think they’ve gone in blindly, so I do support the motion.”

When it came to decision time at the council meeting, only Cr Friend voted against the motion to support the recommendation from officers, which meant council’s March decision stands.