"Private waterfront campsite at Wattamolla."

[Sydney Coast Walks]

Ian,Tara, it seems that NSW Office of Environment and Heritage require that any commercial activity in a national park be "compatible with the aims and objectives of the particular plan of management of the park or area."

I'd have thought that the explicit wording of the RNP PoM, the part where it says no camping will be allowed outside the areas listed (which do not include Providential Point) would render any camping incompatible with the aims and objectives by virtue of being explicitly forbidden.

Is there a different RNP PoM currently in operation which removes these explicit restrictions?

Any query relating to OEH, NPWS and its POM is best directed to the Office of Environment and Heritage.

[colinm]

Is there a different RNP PoM currently in operation which removes these explicit restrictions?

Any query relating to OEH, NPWS and its POM is best directed to the Office of Environment and Heritage.

When *you* referred to the PoM, it was the same PoM I'm able to read? I'm stating this assumption, because while we all commented upon its last revision (and are presumably commented on its next) only some of us appear to be bound by its explicit provisions, which gives you the adjectives 'exclusive' and 'private' to use in your marketing material.

I'm just making sure you're not referring to an exclusive or private PoM. Although I guess you are, and it's expressed in the license. Public document? I don't see it in the list of OEH leases,licenses and easements.

[tom_brennan]

Yes, but IIRC (without going back to re-read it) the examples cited are things like the kiosks at Wattamolla and Garie.

Yes, those are examples, but there's no clause about limiting NPWS from licensing other commercial activities as long as they meet the listed criteria.

Contrast that with, for example, the Blue Mountains NP. In the PoM, there's a clause stating:

Commercial recreation activities will not be granted any rights of access which are exclusive of the public or which exceed normal public rights within the terms of this plan.

[GPSGuided]

This is no place to be contract lawyers. Read the ifs, ands, buts and or clauses.

[colinm]

there's no clause about limiting NPWS from licensing other commercial activities as long as they meet the listed criteria.

I'm not sure that NPWS can license someone to do something which is otherwise illegal.

So http://goo.gl/a8pXsY which says "A person must not camp in a park except in an area set aside for camping" and sets a penalty of 30 units, where it's clear that the PoM does set aside areas for camping, would make it illegal to camp at Wattamolla.

I would have to read the license purported to be given, and also any reservations purported to be made under reg 4(1)(c) etc, or alternatively any document purporting to set aside Wattamolla for camping before I felt sure. It'd make interesting reading.

[colinm]

This is no place to be contract lawyers. Read the ifs, ands, buts and or clauses.

I dunno. Maybe the non-exclusivity clause from the BM PoM should be added to the RNP PoM, which is up for review right now. If this isn't the place to discuss use-restrictions in national parks, as it impacts bushwalking and camping, where is that place?

[colinm]

Oh, also, it's administrative law

[colinm]

Argh. I missed Reg 10(4)(a) ... consent from park authority.

It's a lay-down misere, then.

[GPSGuided]

What I meant was, forum discussions on legal documents tend to be quite one sided, often ignoring the various clauses and special conditions to suit one's point of view. No viable conclusion reached.