Tauranga City Council's freedom camping bylaw is driving away thousands of dollars in tourist income and is probably illegal, the city council Strategy and Policy Committee was told on Monday.
Tauranga members of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association turned out in force to present submissions on the Tauranga Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2012, which restricts freedom campers to five locations; Memorial Park, Greerton Park, Fergusson Park, Marine Park, Waikareao foreshore.
NZMCA members want the Tauranga City Council to re-evaluate their freedom camping bylaw.
The council currently permits 15 motor homes to stay in a designated area per night and restricts motor home campers to stay in any one location to two consecutive nights per month.
It is a number that only serves to drive freedom campers away, says NZMCA member Derek Oakley.
In his submission to the committee Derek told council to think of motor home owners as tourists, and reminded them that the NZMCA AGM held at Baypark at Easter brought $1.6million into city from the 1600 motor home travellers attending the show.
There are about 45,000 motor homes freedom camping in New Zealand, and 3700 of the members are residents in Tauranga.
Campervan tourists spend about $600million a year, but Derek says out of town motor home owners would bypass Tauranga.
Other association members told the council motor home owners stop where they are welcome and bypass towns where they are not.
Kawerau, Taupo, and Hastings welcome motor home owners, but members told council Tauranga does not.
The MCA's statistics gathered from users of the association's own park in Murchison found freedom campers brought in $55,000 a month to local businesses, with about $117 being spent in the small South Island town by each vehicle.
Before putting its own park in Murchison, 60 per cent of the NZMCA members polled said they would have passed through the town without stopping.
Member Lindsay Roberts says Clause 12 of the Freedom Camping Act is a permitted activity.
The law states if council wants to restrict freedom camping it can only do so to protect the immediate area; to protect the health and safety of people who may visit the area; or to protect access to an area.
The bylaw must be consistent with the freedom of movement provisions of the Bill of Rights.
NZMCA Member Warwick MacKay says the overseas tourist freedom campers are also good spenders and their issues can be controlled with the regulations governing vehicles.
It's a problem created more by companies renting out ‘people movers' or vans with a mattress in the back as camper, when the NZMCA self-containment regulations mean their vehicles carry grey water and black water tanks giving three days self-sufficiency.
Committee chairman David Stewart assured the 30-40 NZMCA members at the meeting that the council will be having a good look at its bylaw in terms of the legislation.
11 comments
Mini mobile motions mascerators
Posted on 04-09-2012 09:33 | By Phailed
The idea that freedom campers spend gazillions of $ here is puzzling to me considering they don't want to spend a few dollars staying at say the Mount campground, one of the most spectacular locations anywhere. Is the freedom to dump in your own tiny portable potty so relevant when you see many campervanners using the public facilities rather than cram their rears into their own mini mobile motions mascerator? What's the difference between a vehicle and say erecting a tent with its own toilette? Anyway here's a tip that might allow freedom campers to stay anywhere. Paint your vehicle as some sort of protest movement, Occupy this, that or the other cause. The politically correct local authorities and police will let you stay about 2 months before they even think about moving you on. Remember the Dunedin Octagon etc etc.
Confusing article
Posted on 04-09-2012 14:35 | By wreck1080
When thinking of freedom campers, I don't think of 'campervans' . More, I think of converted cars/vans where they've removed seats to chuck in a bed and little else. Campervans generally have onboard toilets and showers. Freedom camping vehicles are being confused with genuine campervans. Maybe the rules could be altered for vehicles with onboard water/waste holding tanks?
Misleading
Posted on 04-09-2012 16:16 | By Justintime
The ability to freedom camp in the mentioned areas requires each vehicle to be self contained, so it is unlikely the two vans to the right of the photo would qualify. And it is those vans that have tended to be the problem. Unfortunately uninformed people like Phailed can't differentiate between a tent and a properly set up self contained mobile home,so its not surprising they don't understand the cost of modern campgrounds these days. As these RV's travel the country, they spend on food and services in the towns they visit - the camps may not get their dollars but other businesses sure do.
Posted on 04-09-2012 18:30 | By traceybjammet
as usual its the minority that spoil it for the majority of good people out doing the right thing. So what about campers without amenities having a designated carpark area or whatever with a toilet etc. The other good folk can be given better overnight options and be encouraged to come and spend money
A kick in the guts for trying to be kind and fair
Posted on 04-09-2012 19:50 | By Hebegeebies
My observation is that these bods are generally freeloaders who contribute little if anything to our local community while using our facilities often free of charge.So what we get in return for our generosity in designating areas for them to use is abuse about perceived illegal by- laws.Well let's revoke the bylaw immediately that will please these whingers no end and then simply ban them completely which will send them into orbit !!!!!WTF
Must be logic somewhere but I can't find it ..
Posted on 04-09-2012 19:56 | By Murray.Guy
There must be a rational / logic somewhere but I can't find it, other than a few folk that overlook prime beach and reserve areas don't like to wake up and find visitors enjoying the same view or interfering with theirs. I can drive over to the beach at daybreak in my car or van. Have a picnic, use the public loos, can have a snooze on the sand or in my van and leave with the onset of darkness - and that's all quite acceptable, no problem. But if it gets dark and I sleep, it's considered a risk, unacceptable, we must ban it, city wide! The argument in regard protecting the environment, folk leaving rubbish, etc may be a consideration, but the impact from overnight stays (Camper Vans and the like) pales into insignificance when compared to the the rubbish, offensive material and behaviour that takes place in daylight hours by recreational users. Yes, time limits, size of motor-home and other considerations, may reasonably require specific by-laws or provision for. We certainly cannot ban city wide a legitimate right, a kiwi tradition, based on ignorance, snobbery, jealousy or just don't like the look of some vehicles and or their occupants!
@ Justintime and others
Posted on 04-09-2012 23:56 | By Phailed
Sorry you think I'm uninformed, but what's the difference on the environment between a tent with a portapotty and a mobile home with a built in dunny? Sure the mobile home is a lot more posh than a tent but both are self-contained. Question for me is are we going to turn our parks and reserves into free for all camping provided you contain your own poop? If mobile homes are to be permitted then we must also allow the tents. We certainly cannot ban city wide a legitimate right, a kiwi tradition, based on ignorance, snobbery, jealousy or just don't like the look of some Tents and or their occupants (to quote bits of a councillor's comment).
Intolerable intolerance
Posted on 05-09-2012 06:42 | By SpeakUp
Some ‘people' make me SICK! Some comments give me the Heebie jeebies! What is it with you that you have lost (or never had) forbearance for your fellow humans? Have you never been young? Have you always been able to pay for accommodation? Have you ever been a student (likely not) or short on funds but wanted to travel? Have you ever been camping? Have you ever experienced the freedom of staying in a van? Can't you see that the VAST majority of these ‘freedom campers' are good people, minding their own fair business, trying to enjoy experiencing the country on a shoestring budget? I pity you and your knuckle brain life. And good on you Murray! Seems there is at least one fully developed intellect in the Council.
What about consideration for residents
Posted on 06-09-2012 19:47 | By Hebegeebies
SpeakUp >if these bods can prove they pay taxes , TCC local rates and are not in receipt of a DSW benefit then perhaps I might listen to their whining.Any vans need to be fully self contained.Some people who use the free gas BBQs leave them in a shocking state with rubbish strewn around so who are the people who do this ?.Let me repeat we already provide 5 locations for them.These people like another sector in this country think they know their rights but don't think they have any obligations.
plenty of camp sites
Posted on 10-09-2012 15:55 | By camping
You all appear to have missed 1 issue. There are already plenty of camp sites/holiday parks in the Tauranga district to cater for these campervans/motorhomes. These holiday parks must contribute huge rates to TDC as well as employing many staff and also contractors to keep them in operation. At least 2 of these Holiday Parks are owned by the council and yet Mr Guy thinks it is a good idea to take income away from the companies(holiday parks) that help pay his wage. Pretty stupid I think.
@ camping
Posted on 10-09-2012 22:20 | By Hebegeebies
The point you make on camping grounds is absolutely correct but the vanning freeloaders don't want to pay use our camping facilities just leech off us for free then stuff off to the next sucker town.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.