My Account
Six hundred submissions were presented by Arkles Bay residents Rod and Leigh Jenden, left and third from left. The submissions were accepted on behalf of Council by, second from left, Cr Wayne Walker, Cr Greg Sayers and Cr Linda Cooper.
The strength of community concern about Auckland Council’s proposed Freedom Camping in Vehicles bylaw was apparent at a meeting held in Orewa on February 16.
The meeting was the largest of several held around Auckland during the period when public submissions were open, from December 3-February 18 (HM December 12, 2018 and February 13, 2019).
The draft bylaw defines the number of sites across Auckland where freedom camping is allowed and where it is restricted. It has been developed under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, which means that the council can only restrict or prohibit the activity if it has evidence to do so at a particular site.
Staff carried out assessments of more than 1000 council-controlled sites, which has led to the inclusion of 422 sites where Council proposes to prohibit or restrict freedom camping. Local sites where restrictions are proposed include Arundel Reserve; Grant Park; Kinloch Reserve; Loop Rd Reserve; Orewa North Lookout; Orewa Reserve; Remembrance Reserve; and Western Reserve in Orewa, Silverdale War Memorial Park and Metro Park East, Swann Beach Reserve, Manly; Whale Cove Reserve, Stanmore Bay, Fisherman’s Rock Reserve, Army Bay; Little Manly Reserve; Manly Park (boat ramp area), and Red Beach waterfront reserve.
A bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act will mean enforcement officers can issue a $200 fine to anyone in breach.
The Orewa meeting was a chance to quiz staff and councillors directly about the proposed bylaw. Crs Wayne Walker and Greg Sayers were at the meeting, as well as Hibiscus & Bays Local Board chair Julia Parfitt and chair of the hearings panel, Cr Linda Cooper.
However, most of the heat was taken by a staff member, Council policy manager Michael Sinclair.
Chief among the concerns of around 60 residents who attended the meeting were the desire for restrictions to be placed on several other local sites, the criteria under which sites were assessed, and the potential displacement of campers to areas where bans were not put in place.
Each site was assessed by Council staff on the need to protect the area environmentally, to protect access, or to protect the health and safety of people using the area. Several residents asked why the presence of nearby homes was not included in the assessment criteria.
Mr Sinclair said that solid evidence of harm caused by freedom campers was needed. “It’s not enough for people to say they don’t like how it looks when people freedom camp in a public place,” he said.
“Under the law, we have to allow people to have a free camping option.”
Some residents agreed, saying that many freedom campers are responsible and not causing harm but that the sharp increase in numbers over summer was a concern.
There was general applause when the possibility that freedom campers would simply move to sites that have no restrictions, once they were prevented from camping at the sites nominated in the bylaw was raised.
Mr Sinclair said that issue was taken into account when selecting sites where restrictions may apply. “We looked at allowing freedom camping on sites where we believe it will be manageable,” he said.
Mr Sinclair said that Council is very aware of the distinction between “necessity campers”, or homeless people forced to live in their vehicles, and freedom campers. “We definitely don’t want to use the bylaw to victimise the homeless, but there will be an impact on them and there is tension around that for local residents too.”
Enforcement funding
However according to Cr Wayne Walker, whether or not the practice is banned in a particular location could be a moot point, as he says there is inadequate money in the Council’s proposed budget for enforcing regulations and bylaws.
There is one bucket of money for enforcement related to a wide range of things such as building and resource consents, stormwater and sediment runoff, dog and noise control, as well as freedom camping.
“I want more information brought to Councillors so we can ensure there is enough money in the pot,” Cr Walker says. “But in any case money is so tight, that even if we needed more we probably couldn’t get it.”
Local board chair Julia Parfitt says that current funding for enforcement is inadequate, which led to the local board providing just over $20,000 to improve responsiveness related to freedom camping issues this summer.
“The local board should not be paying to enforce a Council bylaw,” she says.
Mr Sinclair says it is too early to speculate what funding will be required. He says council takes a graduated response to enforcement. “In the first instance council will educate and warn campers. If the warning is ignored, we will consider whether escalated enforcement action is needed. We will use the best enforcement tool to help prevent non-compliance in the future,” he says.
A further issue is the need to get central Government approval for camping on areas that fall within the Reserves Act; currently this is not permitted.
“Before any final decision to include the 87 reserves as restricted sites in the bylaw, council will first need to consent to camping on those reserves under the Reserves Act. This decision is expected prior to the adoption of the bylaw,” Mr Sinclair says.
Submissions on the bylaw closed on February 18. A panel consisting of Crs Penny Hulse, Linda Cooper and Independent Statutory Board member Tau Henare will consider all the feedback during a meeting that the public can observe on April 4 and 5 from 9.30am at the Auckland Town Hall. The panel will make a recommendation to the Governing Body for final approval and adoption of the bylaw, which is likely to be in May.
More related stories: Council seeking more freedom camping sites, Local board braces for freedom camping influx, New freedom camping bylaw to be developed
