|
Bylaws Subcommittee
21 August 2017
|
|
Proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017- Summary
of Submissions
Department: Parks and Recreation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 The
proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017 went out for public consultation on 12 July
2017. 250 submissions were received and 17 submitters have requested to
speak at the hearing.
2 This
report summarises the details of the submissions for consideration by the
Bylaws Subcommittee.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Subcommittee:
a) Considers this
report and submissions on the proposed Camping Control Bylaw 2017.
b) Recommends to
Council the final form of the Camping Control Bylaw 2017 for adoption,
incorporating any changes following consideration of public feedback from the
submissions and hearing.
|
BACKGROUND
3 The
Council’s current Camping Control Bylaw 2015 (the Bylaw): prohibits
freedom camping at areas identified in Schedule A of the Bylaw; allows
certified self-contained vehicles, with some restrictions, at areas identified
in Schedule B; and allows all types of freedom camping (including cars and tents),
with some restrictions at two areas identified in Schedule C (Warrington Domain
and Ocean View Recreation Reserve).
4 Over the
past two seasons a significant volume of feedback from the public has been
received in relation to freedom camping with concerns about things such as:
· Loss
of amenity and privacy for residents living nearby popular freedom camping hot
spots (protecting the area)
· Pollution
of beaches, roadsides, parks, gardens and other public places with human waste
and rubbish (public health)
· Ability
for the local community to access areas used by freedom campers (access to the
areas).
5 Overcrowding
also puts a strain on the communities and the infrastructure that Council
administers. However, freedom camping is an important part of the New Zealand
tourism industry and is also popular among New Zealand residents.
6 At its 27
June 2017 meeting Council resolved that it:
Approves the draft Statement of Proposal
for the purposes of a Special Consultative Procedure under Section 83 of the Local
Government Act 2002.
Notes that staff will report the outcome of
the public consultation and final draft Camping Control Bylaw 2015 for adoption
by Council in 2017 prior to the 2017/18 camping season.
7 The draft
Statement of Proposal sought feedback on whether Council should provide for
freedom camping in self-contained vehicles only or continue to provide options
for non-self-contained campers. Further, if providing non-self-contained
options is supported, whether additional sites should be made available.
8 Feedback
was sought on three possible options, devised to help ease issues of freedom
camping:
· Option
1- (Recommended) Limit freedom camping to certified self-contained only
· Option
2- Increased enforcement and infrastructure under existing Bylaw (enhanced
status quo)
· Option
3- Provide additional areas for non-certified self-contained vehicles and
restrict the area for vehicles at each site
9 Feedback
was also sought on criteria which could apply to sites under Option 3. The
proposed criteria are:
· sites
that are not close to residential or commercial accommodation
· sites
that do not have historic or ecological significance
· sites
which are safely accessible by foot and by vehicle
· sites
which have existing infrastructure (toilets, bins etc.) or it is easily able to
be constructed.
DISCUSSION
6 From 12
July to 9 August, 250 submissions were received on the draft Bylaw.
7 Individual
submissions are available to the Panel in the online consultation
programme. A high level summary of submissions is provided below:
10 Which of the
following options do you support to address overcrowding issues?
Option 1- Limit freedom
camping to certified self-contained vehicles
only
Yes 185/250 (74%)
Option
2- Increased enforcement and infrastructure under existing bylaw
Yes 13/250 (5.2%)
Option 3- Provide additional areas for non-certified
self-contained vehicles and restrict
the area for vehicles at each site
Yes 36/250 (14.4%)
11 What criteria should
apply to sites?
Sites that are not close to
residential or commercial accommodation
Yes 152/250 (60.8%)
No 47/250 (18.8%)
Blank 51/250 (20.4%)
Sites that do not have historic or
ecological significance
Yes 147/250 (58.8%)
No 39/250 (15.6%)
Blank 64/250 (25.6%)
Sites which are safely accessible by foot
and by vehicle Yes 151/250 (60.8%)
No 28/150 (11.2%)
Blank 70/250 (28%)
Sites which have existing infrastructure
like toilets, bins etc.
Yes 151/250 (60.4%)
No 43/250 (17.2%)
Blank 56/250 (22.4%)
Sites which are Council owned land
Yes 125/250 (50%)
No 53/250 (21.2%)
Blank 72/250 (28.8%)
KEY THEMES IN SUBMISSIONS
Option 1- Recommended
option: Self-contained vehicles only
8 The
majority of submissions, 185 (74%) supported this option. A number mentioned
the need to ensure on board facilities were used in self-contained vehicles by
campers.
Option 2- Enhanced status
quo
9 This was
the least supported option, with 13 (5.2 %) of submissions (5.2%). This result indicates
the need for bylaw amendment.
Option 3- Additional areas with
restricted vehicle numbers
10 This option was
supported by 36 submissions (14.4%). A number referenced the need for
welcoming visitors to Dunedin.
Criteria for additional areas
11 The criteria for
evaluating additional areas were supported by the majority of submitters. No
other criteria was proposed.
Other feedback topics
Enforcement
13 The need for
increased enforcement of the Bylaw was referenced in 15 submissions (6%).
In addition, among submitters that predominantly chose Option 3 it was
identified that Option 1 may displace freedom campers around Dunedin, making
enforcement (increased or otherwise) challenging.
Restricted numbers regardless of
option chosen
14 46 of the submissions
(18.4%) supported the restriction of numbers of all types of freedom camping
vehicles at all sites, regardless of the option chosen by Council. The
overcrowding of Warrington and associated issues during summer was a common
theme from submitters, especially among the 185 supporters of Option 1.
Campground availability and price
15 Some submitters
questioned whether campgrounds should lower prices to cater to freedom campers;
possibly subsidised by the Council. One submitter suggested there was no capacity
at campgrounds to take the anticipated numbers of potentially 'displaced'
freedom campers from Warrington and Ocean View. There was wide-spread support
for the need to consider and support campground owners and their livelihood.
Private landowners
16 A small number of
submissions, 5 (2%), suggested private landowners may be a solution to
accommodating increasing numbers of freedom campers in the future. Although not
relevant to considering an amendment to the Bylaw as it does not apply to
private land, of note council staff work with private providers when contacted.
Freedom Camping banned outright
17 There were 18
submitters (7.2%) that opposed freedom camping altogether. Comments from
these submitters were predominantly around the need to support local
accommodation providers, which may mitigate any negative effects of freedom
camping on the environment.
Conclusion
17 Once the panel has
heard from submitters, staff can provide advice on potential changes to the
Bylaw to support recommendations the Subcommittee wishes to make to Council in
considering the final form of the Bylaw.
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Ashley Reid - Parks and Recreation Planner
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Jendi Paterson - Recreation Planning and Facilities
Manager
Ruth Stokes - General Manager Infrastructure and
Networks
|
Attachments
There are no attachments for
this report.
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose
of Local Government
This report relates to good-quality and cost-effective use
of Council resources.
|
|
Fit with strategic
framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Spatial Plan
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☒
|
☐
|
☐
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
☒
|
The bylaw is consistent with a number of strategies as it
balances the economic benefits of camping and the need to provide for this
activity, with controls in place to manage the potential effects of freedom
Camping on the environment and communities.
|
|
Māori Impact
Statement
The Otakau Runaka has an interest in the Pukekura Reserves
at Taiaroa Head. There is no change proposed for that area, and it
remains a prohibited site for any freedom camping activity under the bylaw.
|
|
Sustainability
Freedom campers and visitors to the city provide economic
benefits which need to be balanced with potential effects on the environment
and our communities.
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan /
Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy
Not applicable.
|
|
Financial
considerations
Costs incurred for one off implementation requirements of
the Bylaw were covered from existing operating budgets. Increased
infrastructure requirements will need to be considered against existing
spending priorities through the Long Term plan.
|
|
Significance
This decision is considered to have low significance with
regard to Council's Significance and Engagement policy.
|
|
Engagement –
external
Communication and engagement with community groups,
interested organisations, local businesses and Community Boards remains a key
initiative to the success of the bylaw's implementation.
|
|
Engagement -
internal
Consultation with the Transport department, I-Site and
Enterprise Dunedin will continue in the future.
|
|
Risks: Legal /
Health and Safety etc.
Central government funding to assist with infrastructure
may not be received.
|
|
Conflict of
Interest
No conflicts of interest have been identified.
|
|
Community Boards
Communication and liaising with the Otago Peninsula,
Waikouaiti and Saddle Hill Community Boards has been regular throughout the
2016/2017 season.
Waikouaiti Community Board has indicated their desire for
restricted numbers at Warrington. They also strongly favour Option 3 which
will explore opening more areas to freedom camping with restricted vehicle
numbers allowed. They have emphasised the need to welcome freedom campers to
Dunedin and favour a solution that allows for this.
Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board does not support the
funding of infrastructure for freedom campers if paid for by
ratepayers. They have indicated support for such infrastructure and
facilities if from a Central Government fund.
|
