Thames-Coromandel District Council Freedom … Council/Documents...Thames-Coromandel District Council Freedom Camping Bylaw Review 2014 Determination Report 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Freedom Camping Bylaw Review 2014 - Determination Report Page | 1

Thames-Coromandel District Council

Freedom Camping Bylaw Review 2014

Determination Report

1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to determine the need to review the Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw (Part 9 Freedom Camping 2011 of the Thames-Coromandel District Council Bylaw 2004) and outline the proposed process for the review.

The Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw, adopted in December 2011 under section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 (the Act), has been criticised as being unreasonably prohibitive and has been the subject of a judicial review from the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA).

The Council has gathered feedback from the community regarding freedom camping, particularly over the last two years, and most recently through a summer bylaw campaign from December 2013 to February 2014.

Under section 13 of the Act, a bylaw made under section 11 must be reviewed no later than five years after the date on which it was made.

Council has indicated that it considers a complete review of the current bylaw would be appropriate now, and staff have undertaken an assessment of applicable considerations in order to inform the nature of that review. The findings of this assessment are set out in this Determination Report, and a review process is proposed.

Legislative Background In August 2011 the Government introduced new Freedom Camping legislation - the Freedom Camping Act 2011. Under the Act, freedom camping is permitted on all public land controlled or managed by a local authority, unless the local authority prohibits or restricts freedom camping under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.

Section 12 of the Act stipulates that a local authority may not make bylaws under section 11 that have the effect of prohibiting freedom camping in all local authority areas in its District.

Prohibited areas are locations where no camping may take place. Restricted areas are locations where camping may occur subject to certain conditions. This could include conditions such as the number of freedom camping vehicles, maximum number of consecutive nights of freedom camping in the same area by the same camper(s), or requiring campers to be self-contained.

Making a bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 Under section 11 of the Act a local authority may only make a bylaw restricting or prohibiting freedom camping in a local authority area if the bylaw is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

I. To protect the area II. To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area

III. To protect access to the area.


The local authority must also be satisfied that the bylaw is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to that area, and the bylaw must not be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Bylaws under the Act must be made using the special consultative procedure set out in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA02).

Councils cannot justify a bylaw on the basis that it is needed for areas because of:

loss of revenue for commercial camping ground operators costs of enforcing restrictions (hiring enforcement personnel to monitor areas).

Meaning of Definitions for Local Authority Area and Freedom Camp The Act defines a local authority area as an area of land that is within the district or region of a local authority and that is controlled or managed by the local authority under any enactment, but is not permanently covered by water.

In conjunction with the meaning given by the Act for 'freedom camp', this means that freedom camping is permitted on all Council controlled and managed land that is within “200m of a motor vehicle accessible area or the mean low-water springs line of any sea or harbour or within 200m of a formed road”, not just land set aside for reserves. Therefore this includes:

road reserves along residential streets in urban areas land on which Council assets are situated land managed by Council in the interim (such as land subject to Treaty Settlement) land that has been leased or issued with a licence to occupy and subject to renewal.

Under the Act, to 'freedom camp' means to camp (other than at a campground) using a tent or other temporary structure; a caravan; a car, campervan, housetruck, or other motor vehicle. Freedom camping does not include:

a) temporary and short-term parking of a motor vehicle b) recreational activities commonly known as day-trip excursions c) resting or sleeping at the roadside in a caravan or motor vehicle to avoid driver

fatigue.

2 THE COUNCIL'S CURRENT APPROACH TO FREEDOM CAMPING

Current bylaw The Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw (Part 9 Freedom Camping 2011) was made on 14 December 2011 (meeting carried over from 30 November 2011) under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, and became operative from 19 December 2011. Prior to the making of the bylaw, freedom camping was controlled through two bylaws (Public Places Bylaw and Parking Control Bylaw) made under the LGA02, which prohibited freedom camping in any public place. The validity of these has been challenged by the NZMCA.

The Freedom Camping Bylaw identifies areas where freedom camping is prohibited or restricted and identifies the restrictions that apply to freedom camping in restricted areas. Amendments were made to Schedule A (areas where freedom camping is prohibited) and Schedule B (areas where freedom camping is permitted subject to complying with conditions of use) of the current bylaw by Council at its meeting on 13 March 2013.

Alongside the bylaw, in December 2011 the Council adopted a Policy Statement, with key points being the following:


Only self-contained (certified) vehicles will be permitted to camp overnight in restricted areas.

Restricted areas will be approved by Community Boards prior to seeking approval from Council, and Community Boards will also establish conditions for restricted areas and make recommendations to Council.

An additional part of the Freedom Camping Bylaw will identify prohibited and restricted areas, and conditions to be set for restricted areas.

When reserve management plans are reviewed, consideration will be given to allowing freedom camping in designated reserves.

Signage will be placed informing the requirements of the bylaw.

The Council will develop material informing of the locations where camping is permitted.

The bylaw will be enforced and fines will be issued to vehicles found not complying.

Note that in considering the need to review the current bylaw, Council has revised its Policy Statement - see the below section.

In its approach to freedom camping Council acknowledges that the Coromandel is a popular tourist destination that attracts many visitors, but some parts of land and coastline in the District are of a highly sensitive nature, from both a physical and ecological perspective. The Council regulates freedom camping to provide for access and enjoyment of the Coromandel, whilst managing the impacts of camping on local authority areas and on the environment, both in the short term and the long term.

The Council also seeks to balance the interests of the District’s ratepayers and those of freedom campers, for example to ensure that access to areas for both local and non-local visitors is not impeded.

It is also recognised that freedom camping can result in harmful effects on areas and pose health and safety risks to visitors to areas as a result of activity such as vehicular use, human waste and rubbish being deposited. The Council regulates freedom camping to help protect the health and safety of visitors to an area.

Strategic fit and alignment with community outcomes The Council's vision is:

We will be a leading district council in New Zealand through the provision of quality services and facilities, which are affordable, and delivered with a high standard of customer service.

We will earn respect, both as a good community citizen and through our support of community organisations, economic development and the protection of the environment.

Through our actions, the Coromandel will be the most desirable area of New Zealand in which to live, work and visit.

The Council has also articulated a number of values, as follows:

Displaying empathy and compassion Fiscally responsible and prudent with ratepayers money Integrity, transparency and accountability in all our actions Treating all employees fairly and evenly in accordance with good employer practice Being a great place to work where staff are inspired to be the best they can


Working with and having meaningful and on-going consultation with all of our communities

Creating strong partnerships with our District's Iwi Having pride in what we do Being a highly effective and fast moving organisation.

In its 2012-2022 Ten Year Plan the Council articulated three Council outcomes: that the Coromandel will be a prosperous district, a liveable district, and a clean and green District.

Consistent with its vision and values, the Council seeks to find an appropriate balance between encouraging and enabling enjoyment of the Coromandel Peninsula and protection of the unique environment.

Related bylaws and Council plans Assessment of other Council bylaws in regards to freedom camping has identified some inconsistencies that have been considered in assessment of a review approach.

The Public Places Bylaw (Part 2 Public Places 2004) and Parking Control Bylaw (Part 20 Parking Control 2004) of Council's Consolidated Bylaw 2004 have provisions relating to camping. Clause 203.5 of Part 2 Public Places 2004 prohibits any person from camping in any public place, and Clause 2003.5 of Part 20 Parking Control 2004 prohibits any person from stopping, standing or parking any vehicle on any road or public place for the purpose of camping without the prior consent of Council, except in an area which is an approved camping area.

The Council's Reserve Management Plans have also been considered in regards to freedom camping.

The Reserve Management Plans have been developed using the process set out in the Reserves Act 1977, and this work has been in consultation with the community to establish how the community wishes to use its reserve areas. Section 44(1)(e) of the Reserve Act 1977 allows camping on reserves when it is contemplated in a reserve management plan. Council's current Reserve Management Plans allow freedom camping in a small number of reserves. Under the Reserves Act 1977 the only action the Council can take when unauthorised camping occurs is to prosecute (there is no infringement regime).

There is no set requirement to review the plans; however, it is best practice to review them once every 10 years. The Council is currently undertaking a rolling review of its Reserve Management Plans and issues of consistency and alignment will be considered.

3 Review process

Outcomes sought In considering that it is necessary to review the Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw, the Council has approved (9 April 2014) a revised Policy Statement for its approach to freedom camping on the Coromandel Peninsula.

The Policy Statement sets out that, on behalf of the District's communities, the Council will:

encourage responsible freedom camping within the Thames-Coromandel District in a way that ensures a safe and enjoyable experience for freedom campers, that is balanced with the protection of the environment, and the wellbeing of our


visitors and residents, both now and in the future and complies with legislative requirements

ensure that the Thames-Coromandel District derives a positive benefit - social, economic, and environmental, form the freedom camping community.

The Policy Statement further sets out how the Council will do the above by taking a multi-prong approach to promoting, servicing, managing and monitoring responsible freedom camping.

Council's concern and therefore approach to non-self-contained vehicles is also expressed - that such vehicles or those who wish to camp in tents and similar, will be subject to more stringent restrictions and may be prohibited in certain areas so that the District environment is protected and the health and safety of people who may visit the area.

Proposed bylaw review process The proposed process for reviewing the Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw is in accordance with the provisions of the LGA02 and the Freedom Camping Act 2011, and would fulfil Council’s statutory obligations.

In assessing the current situation and potential way forwards, the Council is undertaking the following:

Considering issues associated with freedom camping, outcomes sought of an approach to freedom camping, the appropriateness and likely effectiveness of a range of non-regulatory and regulatory mechanisms to address the identified issues and achieve the outcomes sought.

A Section 11 Analysis to determine whether a bylaw is considered necessary to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in any area within the District, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act.

Considering whether a bylaw remains the most appropriate mechanism to achieve the outcomes sought, and whether the proposed bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw.

Consistent with the Act, the process has also included consideration to ensure that a proposed bylaw would be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The assessments referred to above are outlined further in the following sections of this report. These assessments have identified a number of issues associated with freedom camping, and that these issues would best be addressed by a full review and a revised Freedom Camping Bylaw.


4 ISSUES, OPTIONS AND RATIONALE

Issues associated with freedom camping A range of issues were identified and documented in the development of the current Freedom Camping Bylaw, and further issues were identified and addressed via amendments to schedules A and B of the bylaw in 2013.

Recently feedback has been gathered via a summer bylaws campaign, including regarding Freedom Camping (from December 2013 to February 2014). An assessment of the feedback related to freedom camping has identified a number of issues that the Council needs to have regard to, and it is considered that such issues would best be addressed by way of a revised Freedom Camping Bylaw. These issues are outlined in summary below and in Table 1 further below.

Pollution of the waterways and environment and health issues, such as insanitary conditions, due to human waste and toilet paper.

Rubbish and litter pollute roadsides, reserves, beaches, parks, gardens and other public places.

Damage, destruction or injury of native flora and fauna. Degradation and damage of the environment. Annoyance to nearby residents and loss of visual amenity for residents living near

popular camping spots. Risk of fire being started by campers. Loss of revenue to camp grounds and other accommodation providers. Offensive or antisocial behaviour such as urination in public, intimidation,

offences against persons, causing distress and reducing the enjoyment of other users.

Access to, or usage of, public areas is compromised. Vehicles parked in manner that causes safety issues, prevents or restricts safe

access for other users or are being driven in a manner in public places which endanger other users.

Community views on freedom camping in the Thames-Coromandel District During the summer bylaws campaign the Council received a total of 34 responses to an online survey seeking community views on freedom camping, and 11 written responses. The majority of those who provided feedback are permanent residents in the District. A summary of the views expressed by those who provided feedback is provided below.

Support for freedom camping - of those who responded:

58% were supportive of freedom camping because it: o allows a wide range of visitors to experience the Coromandel o has an economic benefit.

29% were supportive of freedom camping with some restrictions, such as: o only allowing freedom camping where campers have fully self-contained

vehicles o only allowing freedom camping where facilities such as toilets are available o if freedom campers are tidy.


13% did not support freedom camping due to negative impacts.

Areas where freedom camping could be allowed - respondents were asked the areas or types of area where freedom camping could be allowed. The most common suggestions were areas:

where there are appropriate facilities such toilets, drinking water and rubbish bins and areas which are safe

where there will be minimal impact on residential areas or private residences where there will be minimal impact on commercial operations which are near or within walking distance to towns near beaches or the coast.

If freedom camping is allowed, should some conditions be put in place - the majority of respondents (91%) agreed that where freedom camping is allowed, some restrictions or conditions should be put in place. The restrictions or conditions that were most commonly suggested were that:

freedom camping should only be allowed in self-contained vehicles (17 respondents) there should be restrictions on the number of nights that freedom campers could stay

consecutively in an area (14 respondents).

Note – many respondents suggested more than one restriction or condition.

Areas where freedom camping should not be allowed - the areas or types of area where respondents most commonly suggested that freedom camping should not be allowed included areas:

where there are no facilities such as toilets where use will degrade or have a negative impact on the environment where freedom camping would result in traffic issues

which are unsafe or isolated built up areas, car parks or in the middle of town.

Some respondents felt that freedom camping should not be allowed in front of or impeding residential views.

Benefits of freedom camping – the main benefits given of freedom camping included:

economic benefits resulting from freedom campers visiting the Coromandel opportunity for a wide variety of visitors to experience the Coromandel opportunity for people to get away from it all and enjoy the beauty of the Coromandel.

A small number of submitters stated that they felt there were few or no benefits but that there were costs to ratepayers of freedom camping.

Effectiveness of Councils current approach to freedom camping – 38% of submitters felt that the Councils current approach to freedom camping has been effective, and 62% felt that it has not been effective.

However, of those who answered 'no' and gave a reason for why they felt that the Councils current approach to freedom camping has not been effective, the reasons given were:

too tough -some felt that Councils current approach has not been effective because it is too tough.


too lenient - some felt that Councils current approach has not been effective because it is too lenient.

Of those who felt that Councils approach has been too tough, the reasons given included:

that the current approach has damaged the Coromandel's reputation. that economic opportunities have been lost as freedom campers have been

discouraged from visiting and staying in the Coromandel.

Of those who felt that Councils approach has been too lenient, the reasons given included:

that fines are an ineffective way of managing the issues associated with freedom camping

that the Council has been too slow to move freedom campers on and that others are left to clean up the mess.


Discussion of issues and non-regulatory and regulatory management options Table 1 below sets out identified issues associated with freedom camping on the Coromandel Peninsula and considers a range of regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms and options for managing the issues. Some of the issues can be addressed via a number of options; including through a bylaw under Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011. However, some issues identified cannot be regulated under the Act and alternative management options are considered.

Table 1: Issues and management options

Issues Description of issue and impacts

How do we know this is an issue? Non-regulatory options Regulatory options

Health issues such as unsanitary conditions e.g. due to human waste and toilet paper

Human waste and toilet paper result in loss of visual amenity, degradation of the environment, pollution of water and the environment and may result in unsanitary conditions and public health issues.

The disposal of human waste in public places is offensive to local residents and visitors and undermines Thames-Coromandel’s image as a ‘clean green’ tourist destination.

There are on-going costs associated with the clean-up and maintenance of non-designated campsites.

Since the bylaw was introduced (2011), three infringement notices have been issued for depositing of waste generated while freedom camping.

Observations by Council officers of human waste and toilet paper.

This is substantiated by Council officers who not only receive complaints, but attend complaints. Photographic evidence of this exists.

This has been observed in all areas (urban and scenic) where freedom camping activity occurs.

Provide more public toilets, particularly in areas where freedom campers are most likely to camp and maintain 24 hour access to public toilets.

Review whether sufficient waste dump stations are provided; identify gaps in provision.

Produce and distribute brochures informing visitors and freedom campers of the location of waste disposal stations and public toilets.

Erect signs.

Public places bylaw – Continue to prohibit the placing or leaving of any material which is likely to be hazardous or injurious to any person, or is likely to create a nuisance.

Freedom camping bylaw - Protect the health and safety of people who visit the area by prohibiting freedom camping in some areas and or restricting freedom camping in some areas.

Restrict access to certified self-contained motor homes.

Issue infringements under section 20.

Rubbish or litter Rubbish and litter discarded in public places is unpleasant for residents and visitors and

Since the bylaw was introduced (2011), three infringement notices have

Provide and promote rubbish disposal in areas where there are issues with

Litter Act 1979 - Infringement notices can be issued if a littering offence




undermines Thames-Coromandel’s image as a ‘clean green’ tourist destination.

There are on-going costs associated with the clean-up and maintenance of campsites.

been issued for depositing of waste generated while freedom camping.

Whilst Council compliance officers' observation of litter occurrence exceeds this infringement number significantly, infringement of this particular activity is more difficult due to the onus of proof of ownership.

Community complaints -observing littering by freedom campers

Some comments in summer feedback (Dec 2013 - Feb 2014) indicate that some residents feel freedom camping results in litter and rubbish.

rubbish or litter and in areas where freedom campers are most likely to camp, including by:

o providing more rubbish bins

o erecting 'no littering' signs o emptying bins more

often.

Promote and encourage a 'carry-in, carry-out' approach.

Continue to produce and distribute brochures encouraging visitors and freedom campers to act responsibly and informing visitors and freedom campers where they can dispose of rubbish and recycling.

has been observed by a Warranted Officer, any Council staff, or if a Warranted Officer has investigated and has reasonable cause to believe an individual is responsible for the offence and has not rectified the matter.

Public places bylaw – Prohibit the placing or leaving of litter in Councils’ public places bylaw.

Freedom camping bylaw - Issue infringements under section 20.

Damage, destruction or injury of native flora and fauna

Native flora and fauna are damaged in popular freedom camping areas due to poor practice and or to the scale of freedom camping which occurs in a particular area.

Since the bylaw was introduced (2011), four infringement notices have been issued for damages to flora or structure or for depositing waste.

Observations of damage by Council officers, including damage to Pohutukawa trees, including removal of

Restrict access, such as by fencing native flora and fauna in areas which are popular for freedom camping.

Promote and encourage responsible freedom camping and respect for the environment.

Erect signs.

Reserves Act 1977 – Utilise provisions in Section 94 of the Act to prosecute.

Public places bylaw – Prohibit damage, interference, destruction or removal of natural features, animals or plants.

Freedom camping bylaw - Issue infringements under




limbs to use for fires.

Observation of this offence exceeds the number of infringements issued, as the infringement is issued for 'freedom camping' rather than damage.

There are known areas in the District which are known breeding grounds for rare and protected species (such as the Dotterels, Little Blue Penguin, Kiwi and migrating birds).

Observation of freedom campers with uncontrolled dogs that are unaware of the risks they impose to native animals.

Evidence of community complaints regarding freedom camping where there are Dotterels.

section 20.

Environmental Degradation

Freedom camping exacerbates environmental issues such as coastal erosion.

Poor freedom camping practices, such as disposal of human waste, results in pollution and impacts on

Waikato Regional Council survey results indicate that environmental degradation caused by irresponsible freedom camping is an issue.

Evidence that communities value their environment and

Restricting access, such as by fencing areas prone to coastal erosion and areas containing waahi tapu.

Promote and encourage responsible freedom camping and respect for the environment and heritage.

Freedom camping bylaw - Restrict or prohibit freedom camping in fragile areas, such as unstable coastal areas and sensitive environments.

Issue infringement notices under section 20.




water quality.

Freedom camping damages or degrades waahi tapu.

The disposal of human waste, litter and or rubbish has a negative impact on traditional food gathering areas.

landscapes.

Giardia evidence in areas where freedom camping occurs (MOH, WRC, DOC).

Fragile areas exist in our District.

Erect signs warning of areas which are prone to erosion.

Limit the total number of campers that may stay in one area.

District plan - Identify and promote the protection of waahi tapu through the district plan.

Camping in an area may place the safety of freedom campers at risk

Freedom camping in some areas may be unsafe, e.g. some areas are prone to flooding, coastal inundation or may be prone to land subsidence. Camping in these areas may place the safety of freedom campers at risk.

Risks will differ depending on the nature of the issue (e.g. flooding or coastal inundation may only occur occasionally and are likely to be weather dependent, the risk of land subsidence may be constant or depend on a range of factors) and different approaches may be necessary.

Current Reserve Management Plans identify issues (including issues such as flooding and land subsidence) and as a result restrict some activities from occurring in the reserve.

Restricting access such as by fencing areas prone to coastal erosion, coastal inundation or flooding.

Erect signs warning of areas where freedom camping may pose a risk to safety.

Reserve Management Plans (developed under the Reserves Act 1977) – Prohibit camping on reserves where the safety of freedom campers may be at risk.

Freedom camping bylaw - Restrict or prohibit freedom camping in areas where the safety of campers may be at risk – e.g. unstable coastal areas and areas prone to land subsidence, coastal inundation or flooding.

Annoyance to nearby residents

Excessive noise disturbs the peace of residents adjacent to or near popular freedom

Complaints from members of the community.

Council compliance officers

Work with the local police in areas where freedom camping results in annoyance to adjacent or

Noise control under the Reserve Management Act - Issue noise direction notice under the RMA. Council




camping sites.

Taking of water from external taps at unoccupied dwellings or business premises, with the cost of the water used incurred by the owner or occupier of the dwelling or business.

Damage to property and vandalism.

regularly receive abuse and threats from freedom campers when attending a freedom camping matter.

Evidence of a particular freedom camper in Otama that was observed taking water and vegetables from private property. This particular camper was ultimately infringed for unregistered dogs.

Evidence of a particular freedom camper in Whitianga who regularly freedom camps in his caravan and is a regular nuisance to police, i.e. threat and assault, damage and theft from properties.

Another in Thames, who was known to Police for theft, drug taking, assault on and threats to Police.

nearby neighbours.

Facilitate and support neighbourhood watch groups.

Use the Council website and brochures to encourage freedom campers to be respectful of residents near where they camp.

enforcement officers can issue noise directions either verbally or in writing. If the notice is not complied with, the source of the noise may be seized.

Police have the capability to respond to matters related to 'disturbing the peace'.

The Council has the ability to prosecute for damage, but not infringe (under Part 2 and Part 17 of the Consolidated Bylaw).

Freedom camping bylaw - There could be scope to apply restrictions in areas address annoyance.

Loss of visual amenity

Residents who live near to popular freedom camping areas may feel that there is a loss of visual amenity of the area as a result of the number of freedom campers using the area or the regularity of freedom

Community complaints through submissions to Council's processes and complaints to Council (e.g. Beach Road, Whangamata) regarding resident dissatisfaction with freedom camping in urban areas.

'Move on' strategy, where compliance officers request the freedom camper to move on.

NB: Community Patrol are not allowed to get out of their vehicles, therefore, they can only document.

Freedom camping bylaw - Restrict the consecutive number of nights freedom campers can stay in any one area.




campers using the area. Cumulative visual impact, e.g. number of vehicles and associated behaviour, such as clothes washing.

Some comments made in summer feedback (Dec 2013 - Feb 2014) indicates concern that freedom camping has a negative impact on visual amenity.

Fire risk

Public places, structures or buildings, native flora and fauna may be damaged or harmed by fires which are not appropriately managed.

Fire may spread and cause damage to nearby private properties or residences.

Evidence of damage to trees being used for fires.

Across the whole District there is a fire restriction in place the entire year, and complete fire prohibition throughout summer.

Evidence of a freedom camper burning toilet paper waste and caused a grass fire (in Whitianga).

Inform visitors and freedom campers of the danger of fires.

Prohibit the lighting of fires.

Loss of revenue to camp grounds and other accommodation

Commercial camping grounds are required to meet the Camping Ground Regulations 1985. These regulations prescribe minimum standards and compliance with these results in cost. The same standards are not required in public places where freedom camping is required and this

Some comments made by those who participated in the summer feedback (Dec 2013 - Feb 2014) indicates that commercial operators are concerned about the loss of revenue and would like the Council to be able to prohibit freedom camping in proximity to commercial

Inform visitors and freedom campers of the accommodation options on the Coromandel Peninsula.

No options identified.




is perceived as unfair.

Freedom camping results in revenue loss to commercial camping grounds and other accommodation providers.

Freedom campers may stay near commercial camping grounds and use facilities for free.

camping grounds.

Anti-social behaviour

Freedom campers engage in offensive or antisocial behaviour such as urination in public, intimidation, offences against persons, causing distress and reducing the enjoyment of other users.

As per annoyance to nearby residents.

Incident where a knife was pulled on a Council officer, and an officer being spat on.

Work with the police in areas where freedom camping results anti-social or offensive behaviour.

Facilitate and support neighbourhood watch groups.

Public places bylaw – Prohibit behaviour which may intimidate, cause damage or nuisance, pollute or deface, including graffiti. Prohibit the consumption, injection or inhalation or distribution of any mind-altering substance.

Liquor ban – Use Part Four of the Consolidated Bylaw to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in public areas where anti-social behaviour appears to be alcohol related.

Compromised access to or impact on general usage of public areas

The presence of freedom campers can deter use of a public area by local residents or day visitors due to use of available car parks by campers, obstruction of access, pollution of the site

Council officers' observations of compromised or obstructed access.

Promote and encourage responsible freedom camping.

Public places bylaw – Prohibit the obstruction of the entrances to or exits from a public place.

Parking bylaw – Could be used to regulate behaviour




or because visitors may feel reluctant to intrude on a person’s campsite.

where a parking issue is resulting in compromised access.

Freedom camping bylaw - Restrict or prohibit freedom camping in areas where freedom camping results in compromised access to local authority areas.

Traffic related safety issues or hazards

Vehicles being used for freedom camping are parked in manner that causes safety issues, prevents or restricts safe access for other users, or are being driven in a manner which endangers other users in public places.

Officer observation and evidence regarding parking in dangerous situations that compromises not only the campers themselves, but the safety of others (e.g. at Blackjack Road).

Work with the police in areas where freedom camping results in safety issues.

Parking bylaw – Could be used to regulate behaviour where a parking issue presents traffic related safety risk.

Lack of control of non-Council area

The public does not necessarily know what is Council land.

The Council does not have effective tools to control impact of camping on other public land.

Community complaints to the Council relating to freedom camping on areas not controlled or managed by the Council – e.g. complaints about camping on state highways or DoC land.

Work to develop a collaborative approach with DoC , NZTA, NZMHA, to freedom camping across all public areas in the District.

Lobby Government.

No options identified.


5 FREEDOM CAMPING ACT 2011: SECTION 11 ANALYSIS

Under Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, Council may only make a bylaw restricting or prohibiting freedom camping in a local authority area if the bylaw is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

To protect the area To protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area To protect access to the area.

An analysis in accordance with Section 11 of the Act has been undertaken to identify whether a bylaw is necessary in any local authority area within the District. This analysis is presented in the Section 11 Analysis Findings document. Consistent with the Act, areas identified for restriction or prohibition are only those areas where the analysis undertaken demonstrates that there is sufficient reason and information for Council to be satisfied that a bylaw is necessary.

Approach Consistent with the intent of the Act, the analysis undertaken has started from the position that freedom camping is permitted in all local authority areas in the District.

Appropriate considerations, including issues and implications associated with freedom camping in the District, have been identified via a range of methods such as:

feedback gathered over summer (the busiest time for visitors to the District) community complaints and concerns captured through Council's Request For Service

(RFS) system information recorded by Council compliance officers about areas where issues have

been identified resulting from poor freedom camping practices, such as disposal of human waste

meetings with Council elected members and senior council officers, including area managers

analysis of Council's Reserve Management Plans.

Areas within the District of potential concern have then been identified and analysis undertaken for each area to consider:

the nature of that area and the issue(s) identified in relation to that area the rationale for restricting or prohibiting freedom camping in that area, consistent

with provisions of the Act (e.g. to protect the area, to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area, and/or to protect access to the area), and if restriction(s) are considered necessary, those that should apply

whether there is sufficient information overall for that area for Council to be satisfied that it is necessary to restrict or prohibit freedom camping in that area.

Consistent with the Act, each identified area for restriction or prohibition has been defined by either or both of the following ways:

a) by a map b) by a description of its locality (other than just its legal description).


6 MECHANISMS AND OPTIONS TO ADDRESS ISSUES

Option 1: No bylaw, freedom camping is permitted across the District. Introduce a package of non-regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of freedom camping (for example, more public toilets, more rubbish bins, etc.)

Option 2: Make or amend bylaws made under the LGA02 or the Reserves Act 1977 to regulate freedom camping. Introduce a package of non-regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of freedom camping, in support of the bylaws.

Option 3: Review the Councils current Freedom Camping Bylaw and develop a new bylaw (revoking the current bylaw), based in part and as appropriate on the model bylaw prepared by lawyers Chen Palmer. In addition, introduce a package of non-regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of freedom camping, in support of the bylaw. This option would also involve revoking clauses in other Council bylaws (Clause 203.5 of Part 2 Public Places 2004, Clause 2003.5 of Part 20 Parking Control 2004) which control camping, to ensure consistency. Further, the Council would continue to work on alignment of Reserve Management Plans and the Freedom Camping Bylaw.

The basis of the developed bylaw would be that freedom camping would be permitted on all Council controlled and managed land unless prohibited or restricted in the bylaw. Areas could only be specified as prohibited or restricted in accordance with the provisions set out in the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

Table 2: Options for managing the impacts of freedom camping and associated advantages and disadvantages

Regime Management Approach Advantages Disadvantages

No Bylaw

Freedom camping is considered to be a permitted activity in all parts of the District (but does not trump reserve management plans or district plan rules).

The District may be perceived as being more welcoming to visitors that choose to freedom camp. This may result in economic benefits due to more visitors.

No incentive for campers to act responsibly.

Freedom camping is considered to be a permitted activity in all local authority areas.

Enforcement of irresponsible campers would largely be ineffective.

Would rely on the effectiveness of non-regulatory options and this approach would be likely to have financial impacts for the Council.

District Plan Rules Control freedom camping through None identified. No access to instant fines for breaches


district plan rules. of District Plan rules, so the Council would need to consider what practical enforcement options apply.

Reserves Act

Freedom camping is effectively prohibited in reserves under section 44(1) of the Reserves Act 1977 unless any of the statutory exceptions apply.

Note that the Council would need to consider what practical enforcement options apply if it relies on this prohibition.

None identified. No access to instant fines for bylaw breaches, so the Council would need to consider what practical enforcement options apply.

The Council would have to rely on summary offence provisions under the LGA02 (which involve a prosecution under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957) for bylaw breaches.

A prosecution can be time consuming and potentially costly, and costs may or may not be recovered depending on the success of the prosecution.

Local Government Act (LGA02)

Use bylaw-making powers under sections 145 and/or 146 of the LGA02.

Bylaws made under the LGA02 may be made to: protect the public from nuisance; to protect, promote and maintain public health and safety; to minimise the potential for offensive behaviour in a public place; to control the use of liquor in a public place.

Bylaws made under LGA are able to regulate or prohibit freedom camping in the district but must not be repugnant to the general laws of NZ (This would include section 12 of the Freedom Camping Act)

Bylaws must be reasonable.

None identified. No access to instant fines for bylaw breaches, so the Council would need to consider what practical enforcement options apply.

The Council would have to rely on summary offence provisions under the LGA02 (which involve a prosecution under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957) for bylaw breaches.

A prosecution can be time consuming and potentially costly, and costs may or may not be recovered depending on the success of the prosecution,

A prosecution may only be made to a person not a vehicle. An enforcement officer would be required to wait around for the owner of the vehicle in


order to issue an infringement notice under the LGA02 or the Litter Act 1979.

Parking Bylaw Disadvantages:

Parking bylaw requires extensive signage in order to be enforced and only relates to vehicles (e.g. does not apply to camping in a tent alongside a vehicle).

Level of signage required may also reduce visual amenity.

Freedom Camping Act

Freedom camping is considered to be a permitted activity, but some parts of the District can be designated as prohibited for freedom camping or where restrictions apply.

Access to instant fines for bylaw breaches.

Consider consistency issues between a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and any Reserves Management Plans.

Consider issue for restriction or prohibition overall.

Access to instant fines for bylaw breaches.

Appointed and warranted officers can issue infringement fines to a person or a vehicle.

Freedom camping can only be prohibited or restricted where it is necessary for one or more of the following purposes:

o Protect an area o Protect the health and safety of

people who may visit an area o To protect access to an area.


Assessment of Management Options Option 1 No bylaw – remove all controls in all bylaws Under this option, the Council would have no bylaw, either under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 or under the LGA02. Freedom camping would be a permitted activity in all parts of the District, falling within the definition of local authority land. Enforcement would be limited to waste depositing or damage of the area (offences contained in the Freedom Camping Act).

The Council could introduce other non-regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of freedom camping or to control freedom camping. For example: more public toilets, more rubbish bins, etc. There would be additional capital expenditure and on-going operational costs associated with this option.

This option would require the revocation of the Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw which must be done through the special consultative procedure.

This approach relies on the effectiveness of non-regulatory options and would be likely to have financial impacts for the Council. There would be no real incentive for campers to act responsibly and enforcement of irresponsible campers would largely be ineffective.

Benefits – The District may be perceived as being more welcoming to visitors that choose to freedom camp. This may result in economic benefits due to more visitors.

Disadvantages – This option would rely on the effectiveness of non-regulatory options, and the removal of regulatory controls may result in increased issues such as litter and disposal of human waste resulting in unsanitary conditions, environmental pollution and degradation, compromised access and/or usage of public space. Based on summer feedback received (December 2013 - February 2014) and feedback via previous consultation processes, it is unlikely that the community would support this approach (most who responded over the summer agreed that where freedom camping was allowed, some conditions or restrictions should be put in place).

The analysis undertaken under Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 has found that a bylaw is considered necessary to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in a number of areas across the District (as set out in the Section 11 Analysis Findings document). Council would not be able to effectively restrict or prohibit freedom camping in identified areas of concern.

Financial costs – There may be some reduction in cost as Council officers would no longer enforce for freedom camping. However, there would be costs associated with mitigating the effects of freedom camping by non-regulatory means. For example, if more litter bins were installed or service levels (e.g. bins emptied more frequently) were increased in areas where freedom camping is popular. Also, there would be costs associated with signage.

Option 2:

Make or amend bylaws made under the LGA02 or the Reserves Act 1977 to regulate freedom camping Under this option, Council could make or amend current bylaws (e.g. Public Places Bylaw, Parking Control Bylaw) to regulate or manage the effects of freedom camping. Council


could also introduce a package of non-regulatory measures to mitigate the effects of freedom camping, in support of the bylaw(s).

Benefits – Under this option there would be some level of regulatory management of issues, but the perception may be lessened that the District does not welcome visitors that choose to freedom camp. This may result in economic benefits for the District due to more visitors. Disadvantages - If Council chose this option the main disadvantages would be as follows: No access to instant fines for bylaw breaches so the Council would need to consider

what practical enforcement options apply. The Council would have to rely on summary offence provisions under the LGA02 (which

involve a prosecution under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957) for bylaw breaches. A prosecution can be time consuming and potentially costly, and costs may or may not

be recovered depending on the success of the prosecution. A prosecution may only be made to a person, not a vehicle. An enforcement officer

would be required to wait around for the owner of the vehicle in order to issue an infringement notice under the LGA02 or the Litter Act 1979.

The analysis undertaken under Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 has found that a bylaw is considered necessary to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in a number of areas within the District (as set out in the Section 11 Analysis Findings document). This option is unlikely to allow the Council to effectively restrict or prohibit freedom camping in the identified areas of concern.

Financial costs – There would be costs associated with non-regulatory measures put in place to mitigate the impacts of freedom camping. For example, if more litter bins were installed or service levels (e.g. bins emptied more frequently) were increased in areas where freedom camping was popular. To enforce bylaw breaches could be costly, and costs may or may not be recovered depending on the success of the prosecution.

Option 3

Develop a new Freedom Camping Bylaw based, in part and as appropriate, on the model bylaw, revoke inconsistent clauses in other Council bylaws, and continue to work on alignment of Reserve Management Plans and the Freedom Camping Bylaw

Under this option, the Council would fully review the current Freedom Camping Bylaw and prepare a new bylaw that would be based, in part and as appropriate, on the model bylaw which has been developed by lawyers Chen Palmer in consultation with the Department of Internal Affairs, Local Government New Zealand and the Department of Conservation. On adoption of a revised bylaw Council would then revoke its current Freedom Camping Bylaw.

This option would also involve revoking Clause 203.5 of Part 2 Public Places 2004 and Clause 2003.5 of Part 20 Parking Control 2004 which control camping, to ensure consistency of approach to the regulation of freedom camping in the District. Further, the Council would continue to work on alignment of Reserve Management Plans and the Freedom Camping Bylaw.

Benefits - The main advantage of this option is the enforcement regime available for a bylaw created under the Freedom Camping Act 2011. These include the following:

Appointed and warranted enforcement officers would have the ability to issue infringement fines to a person or a vehicle (section 26).


If a vehicle is rented, the Freedom Camping Act 2011 requires rental car companies to keep a record of peoples' contact details to enable fines to be collected from offenders (sections 29 and 30).

In addition to a list of infringement offences, the Freedom Camping Act 2011 does provide summary offences for serious cases - Section 20(2) - discharging noxious, dangerous or offensive substance onto a local authority area (e.g. emptying a self-contained waste tank) – summary conviction and a fine not exceeding $10,000; and Section 20(3) - obstruction of an enforcement officer - summary conviction and a fine not exceeding $5,000.

Using the model bylaw as a guiding template may send a positive signal to those who are critical of the Council's current Freedom Camping Bylaw, and also go some way to ensuing better relationships with industry stakeholders, such as the New Zealand Motor Caravans Association that is generally supportive of the model bylaw.

The analysis undertaken under Section 11 of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 has found that a bylaw is considered necessary to prohibit or restrict freedom camping in a number of areas within the District (as set out in the Section 11 Analysis Findings document). This option would allow the Council to restrict or prohibit freedom camping in the identified areas of concern. Disadvantages – Feedback gathered over summer (December 2013 to February 2014) indicates that some of the community feel that the Councils current approach to regulating freedom camping has resulted in negative perceptions of the District, and that economic opportunity had been lost. Such perceptions may continue despite Council revoking its current Freedom Camping Bylaw and developing a new bylaw.

Financial costs – There would be costs associated with non-regulatory measures put in place to mitigate the impacts of freedom camping. For example, if more litter bins were installed or service levels (e.g. bins emptied more frequently) were increased in areas where freedom camping is popular. Also, there would be costs associated with signage, and enforcement.

Recommended Option Option 3 is the recommended option - Develop a new Freedom Camping Bylaw based, in part and as appropriate, on the proposed model bylaw, revoke inconsistent clauses in other Council bylaws, and continue to work on alignment of Reserve Management Plans and the Freedom Camping Bylaw.