Inconsistency in council procedure?

Why is council seeking submissions regarding its intent to issue a 5 year licence to a commercial operation on Crown Land?

(Council Noticeboard 26 July – Jetski Hire, Corrigans Beach Reserve)

This has not been council’s practice in the past, as evidenced by the 5 year licence extensions for the Huntfest event (2013 & 2016) on Crown Land, where no consultation occurred.

The reason for this variation in procedure cannot be due to the ‘commercial’ nature of the Jetski hire proposal, as council has informed me, in writing, that they consider Huntfest to be a ‘commercial’ activity, even though it is run by a not for profit Incorporated Association.

In addition, Council’s Code of Practice for Licencing of Public Reserves, makes no distinction between the two – commercial or not for profit.

In fact, this Code omits any requirement for consultation in relation to licence approvals on Crown Land, whether it is “for the purpose of conducting events, markets or commercial operations.”

The stated purpose of Council’s Code for Licencing is to, “establish a consistent and fair framework,” when dealing with licence approvals.

So where is the consistency and fairness in seeking submissions in regard to the licencing of one activity and not another?

I would welcome an explanation as to why this discrepancy has occurred.

Yours Sincerely,

Patricia Gardiner

Deua River Valley


Sem2 Display 750x350 v1a (1).png