Relocatable Homes: Medieval Tenure in the 21st Century?

Abstract

Many caravan parks have closed in recent years and this trend is continuing. There are various reasons for this but it is mainly due to the escalating value of land, particularly in urban and coastal areas making it more valuable for other forms of development or market focus. Permanent park residents do not have security of tenure or long-term leases and are susceptible to eviction in the event of a park closure. Owners of relocatable homes-factory-built transportable houses-are particularly disadvantaged because relocation costs may be as high as $20 000. This article discusses the effect of caravan park closures in the context of housing and urban planning policy and the conflicts between the public goal of affordable housing and the economic interests of private land owners. A case study is used to illustrate the demographic background of 62 households living in a South Australian caravan park and their fear of eviction should their park be sold. The article suggests some policy intervention measures that could be implemented in order to reduce the loss of residential sites. Alternative models of park ownership are examined, and a reformed legislative framework is proposed.

Procreative and performative kinship among residents in Victorian caravan parks

“…Recent survey‐based South Australian studies (Rogers et al . ; Bunce ) reiterate these themes in an Australian context (supporting some previous commentaries on parks in the eastern states)…”

“… Positive assessments are phrased in terms of lifestyle choice, sense of community and sometimes with sentimental attachment to former holiday venues. See Bunce (, ), Connor and Ferns (), Elliot (), Geggie () and Greenhalgh and Connor (). See also Aman and Yamal () and Margonelli () on the benefits of caravan parks for ageing baby boomers in Pennsylvania and California. …”

Campgrounds as service hubs for the marginally housed

“…However, stays precipitated by an emergency and initially intended as temporary can readily become permanent in 'situations of poor housing and high housing insecurity' (Severinsen & Howden-Chapman, 2014, p.127). Moreover, the risk of marginalisation from the mainstream rental market is likely to increase with length of stay (Bunce, 2010;MacTavish et al, 2006). We found many long-term residents had experiences of moving between campgrounds (often compelled by closures), consistent with notions of dependence and diminished choice.…”

“…Campgrounds-as-service-hubs mask some of the exclusion that is produced by an unaffordable housing market, helping to ameliorate its effects while doing nothing to address root causes. Moreover, in the absence of tenure or minimum housing standards, campgrounds are a poor substitute for formal rental housing (Bunce, 2010). On the other hand, transforming campgrounds into service hubs may be interpreted as a helpful adaptation to the profound challenge presented by a regional manifestation of the global housing affordability crisis (Wetzstein, 2017).…”

“…Residential campers are prone to displacement through eviction, including to make way for higher paying tourists in peak season, and through the sale and redevelopment of campgrounds, which may occur at any time (Reed & Greenhalgh, ; Severinsen, ). Comparisons may be drawn with Australian campgrounds, where an ‘essentially medieval land tenure system’ and the related ‘imbalance of power’ between campground owners/managers and residents create conditions of vulnerability (Bunce, , p.280). Indeed, the lack of legal security contributes to campground residence being considered a form of homelessness in New Zealand (Statistics NZ, ).…”