Agenda of Council - 5 September 2017

Council

5 September 2017

REPORT R8282

Deliberations on the Proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw

1. Agreed Purpose of Report

1.1 To provide information to assist Council in deliberating on the proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw.

2. Summary

2.1 The Council needs to:

(a) Adopt the Bylaw in whole or in part, amend the Bylaw or withdraw the Bylaw;

(b) Determine that any amendments to the Bylaw are within the scope of submissions; and

2.2 The recommendation is to amend the Bylaw with amendments as summarised following. The Bylaw with amendments is included as Attachment 1 with associated maps in Attachment 2:

(a) Centennial Park and Paddys Knob are moved from Schedule 2 restricted to Schedule 1 prohibited.

(b) The number of certified self-contained (CSC) vehicles on Buxton Carpark is increased by three and Montgomery Carpark by five to make up for the loss of places at Paddys Knob and Centennial Park.

(d) “Night” is defined as 10pm to 7am.

(e) Schedule 2 specifies that freedom camping vehicles and their associated possessions must remain within one single carparking space where defined and within 1 metre of the vehicle where undefined.

3. Recommendation

That the Council

Receives the report Deliberations on the Proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw (R8282) and its attachments (A1749074, A1729817, A1821493, A1822099); and

Confirms the amendments to the Proposed Freedom Camping Bylaw shown in Attachment 1 (A1749074), noting the following changes:

· Insert a new definition of night, “Night: means the time period between 10pm and 7am; and

· Delete Schedule 2 d) and replace with “Unless subject to area specific restrictions all vehicles being used for freedom camping must depart by 7am”; and

· Delete Schedule 2 e) and replace with “All vehicles being used for freedom camping must be legally parked and any possessions associated with freedom camping contained within a single, defined carparking space. If undefined, vehicles must park in a courteous manner to allow other vehicles to also park within the signposted area, with all possessions no more than one metre from the vehicle in any direction”; and

· Delete Norgate Reserve from Schedule 1 and Wakapuaka Sandflats Carpark from Schedule 2; and

· Move Paddys Knob Reserve and Centennial Park from Schedule 2 to Schedule 1 (Prohibited areas for freedom camping); and

· Increase the number of certified self-contained overnighting parking spaces on Buxton carpark by three, and on Montgomery carpark by five; and

Agrees the amendments are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the amended Freedom Camping Bylaw is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and

Adopts the Nelson City Freedom Camping Bylaw as amended and appended to this report as Attachment 1 (A1749074): and

Determines the date that the Freedom Camping Bylaw will commence as being 1 December 2017.

4. Background

4.1 Nelson City Council is developing an approach to freedom camping which seeks to realise the opportunity of freedom camping whilst managing the community and environmental effects.

4.2 As part of its wider approach outlined in the Freedom Camping Strategic Plan 2016, Council identified that an effective regulatory regime was required.

4.3 At its 23 March 2017 meeting it agreed that a bylaw made under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 was the most appropriate and proportionate regulatory method to complement other management approaches.

4.4 The draft Nelson City Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017 and accompanying Site Assessment was consulted on between 13 June and 14 July (including several late submissions) and received 226 submissions and two petitions of 36 people and 15 people respectively relating to Paddys Knob and Centennial Park.

4.5 The underlying policy intent of the draft Bylaw, which was developed following the strategic review in 2016 and the Site Assessment, can be expressed as:

(a) Freedom camping in non-self-contained vehicles is prohibited throughout the City.

(b) In the local authority areas identified in Schedule 1, all freedom camping (including CSC vehicles) is prohibited. This includes a central city zone.

(c) In the local authority areas in Schedule 2, freedom camping in CSC vehicles and some limited tenting (under current provisions) is permitted in accordance with the restrictions specified in the bylaw and that schedule.

(d) In all other local authority areas including roads, freedom camping is permitted in CSC vehicles only. The general provisions of the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and all relevant provisions of other legislation and regulations still apply to these areas.

(e) Council has the ability to open temporary sites or to temporarily close sites to freedom campers for stated reasons.

4.6 It is noted that State Highways are Crown owned and not covered by any Nelson City Council Freedom Camping Bylaw.

5. Discussion

5.1 The following structure is followed in section 5 of the report:

(a) A brief summary of the overall number of submissions and broad commentary. The full submissions with recommendations to council from each are contained as Attachment 3

(b) A discussion of the main issues raised in submissions

(d) Answers to questions raised by elected members following the 9 August Hearing are included as Attachment 4.

Summary of Submissions

5.2 The overall tenor of submissions was supportive of the approach taken by the draft Bylaw to both CSC and non-self-contained vehicles, and the overall approach to reserves, with the notable exceptions of Paddys Knob Reserve and Centennial Park. These two areas also attracted several resident petitions contained in the submissions’ folder.

5.3 In relation to Paddys Knob and Centennial Park, submitters added more information to assist the Site Assessment. Some of this information has been helpful, although other information does not meet the three legal criteria of the Freedom Camping Act 2011, or is unable to be verified (such as reported complaints statistics).

5.4 Submitters were generally confused by the different provisions in the draft Bylaw for CSC and non-self-contained vehicles, citing behaviours associated with non-self-contained vehicles to areas recommended for CSC vehicles only.

5.5 Submitters also did not generally understand that Council has not designated any area including Paddys Knob and Centennial Park as freedom camping sites.

5.6 Under the Freedom Camping Act 2011 almost all public places are made available for freedom camping now including these sites. The Council's draft Bylaw assesses all those sites for reasons to restrict or prohibit what is already permissible under Law. In doing this exercise, Council is only allowed to consider three reasons given by the law to restrict or prohibit.

Issues Raised in Submissions

5.7 The following data provides a summary of the main issues and topics raised in submissions, and comments on each matter. Additional matters raised by elected members following the Hearing are summarised in Attachment 4.

5.8 Most submitters agreed with the Bylaw’s proposed ban on non-self-contained vehicles.

5.9 Common themes are listed, with the submission numbers in the tables under each theme.

5.10 Health and Safety of locals visiting Centennial Park

Relevant submission numbers:

13451	13454	13465	13469	13474	13501	13510	13515	13517
13538	13545	13546	13547	13548	13549	13550	13554	13575
13586	13591	13601	13630	13632	13664	13670	13679	13685
13686	13688	13690	13703	13704	13705	13706	13707	13708
13709	13750	13751	13754	13770	13771	13772	13774	13776
13777	13778	13780	13781	13782	13783	13784	13785	13787
13788	13789	13790	13791	13794	13795	13796	13797	13798
13800	13804	13810	13812	13826	13827	13828	13829	13847
13848	13849

5.11 The Site Assessment scored Centennial Park as 4/15 which does not exceed the threshold of 9 for significance. The recommended approach was to allow four CSC vehicles but no non-self-contained vehicles and only in the overnighting hours of 10pm (recommended) to 7am.

5.12 Many of the reasons that residents wanted CSC vehicles prohibited from the site cited safety for elderly and children, the risk of crimes against children, problems associated with the behaviours of freedom campers using non-self-contained vehicles, camping behaviours on a reserve, and additional information provided on the historic purpose of the reserve. All these submitter reasons need to be considered against the actual proposal – four CSC vehicles between the hours of 10pm (recommended) and 7am.

5.13 Matters of children’s and elderly persons’ safety is a perceived problem that, to our knowledge, has not yet been reported in practice at the location. It is considered in this report as a low risk, given the overnighting hours are 10pm to 7am and their drivers are CSC drivers, many of whom are NZMCA members subject to a Code of Conduct agreement.

5.14 The area carries several ‘No Camping’ signs which have pictures of both tents and CSC vehicles. This is an historic reference to the area being deemed unsuitable for this activity. It may reflect the position prior to the Freedom Camping Act 2011, and the prohibitive signage is legally challengeable under the Freedom Camping Act.

5.15 A further reason provided by submitters was unsuitability of the site given the dimensions of campervans and the encroachment onto the road and footpath.

5.16 In a further site assessment, it is confirmed that Centennial Park has 15 carparks (not 18 as stated in the Site Assessment). All the carpark spaces are less than 7m and a number of them less than 6m. They are designed for cars not campervans, and larger CSC vehicles in these carparks would protrude unsafely onto the road. Campervans range from 3m to 10m with most being in the range of 3-6m in length. This is an issue with national implications.

5.17 In addition, an area of footpath is directly adjacent to the kerb, meaning that vehicles parking normally to the kerb would also encroach significantly over a narrow (1.2m to 1.4m wide) footpath. This would make the parking of CSC vehicles here dangerous for footpath traffic particularly pushchairs, mobility scooters and wheelchairs, who would have very restricted ability to traverse around the front of the vehicles given the topography. In fact, a barrier needs to be added to the design in this area for cars also.

5.18 It is recommended that the Site Assessment criteria of Access be raised from 1 to 5, where a 5 in any one category can trigger a significance rating. In light of this, it is recommended that no CSC vehicles overnight at the site and that Centennial Park be transferred from a Schedule 2 restricted to a Schedule 1 prohibited site.

5.19 Access to, and health and safety of nearby residents of Paddys Knob

Relevant submission numbers:

13465	13474	13484	13485	13515	13538	13545	13546	13547
13548	13549	13550	13554	13575	13621	13626	13630	13632
13649	13651	13665	13666	13667	13672	13674	13679	13680
13681	13682	13685	13686	13688	13690	13693	13697	13700
13701	13703	13704	13705	13706	13707	13709	13710	13713
13714	13718	13719	13725	13730	13731	13732	13733	13736
13738	13742	13743	13744	13746	13750	13751	13754	13763
13766	13768	13770	13771	13772	13774	13775	13776	13777
13778	13780	13781	13782	13783	13784	13785	13787	13788
13789	13790	13791	13794	13795	13796	13797	13798	13799
13804	13808	13809	13812	13813	13814	13826	13827	13828
13829	13849	13867

5.20 The Site Assessment scored Paddys Knob as 10/15 (significant) which exceeded the threshold of 9 for significance. The recommended approach was to allow four CSC vehicles but no non-self-contained vehicles.

5.21 Submissions raised the issues of appropriateness of campervans in a residential area, the need to increase the Site Assessment score for the area’s significant landscapes, elderly persons’ fear for their properties and parents’ for their children’s safety, and that the access road is too narrow. All these submitter reasons need to be considered against the actual proposal – four CSC vehicles who would likely park overnight in the existing area provided for buses during the day.

5.22 Other submitters queried the suitability from a traffic perspective including the turning circles of the vehicles. In a further site assessment of the road to Paddys Knob:

5.23 It is deemed sufficient by Council staff for campervans, and there are no length limitations on this road that would apply to campervans.

5.24 The site has 3 bus parks as stated. An observation is that all the painted markings for carparking and bus parking are very worn and confusing.

5.25 In addition there has been mooted the possibility of a playground on the site of 3 of the carparks. In light of the score in the original Site Assessment which could be raised to 12 given the significance of the site vistas, the unclear markings of bus and car parking which need to be clarified, and the need to settle on the development plans for Paddys Knob, it is recommended that no CSC vehicles overnight at the site and that Paddys Knob be transferred from a Schedule 2 restricted to a Schedule 1 prohibited site. A site development plan be settled on and the suitability of CSC vehicles be considered as part of that redesign process with the community’s input.

5.26 Objection to Council expenditure; want freedom campers to use existing campgrounds

Relevant submission numbers:

13439	13451	13457	13460	13467	13469	13480	13482	13483
13490	13491	13498	13509	13520	13527	13535	13545	13548
13609	13612	13655	13664	13671	13675	13689	13703	13705
13722	13724	13735	13736	13741	13742	13743	13750	13758
13776	13796	13802	13804	13815

5.27 An approach of not allowing any freedom camping in Nelson City public areas was advocated by some submitters. The approach is not legal under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

5.28 The Freedom Camping Strategic Plan 2016 strongly recommended the strategy of Council supporting its campgrounds and identified some 200 spare capacity at Matai Campground at peak. With the prohibition of non-self-contained vehicles from public places in Nelson they effectively will be directed to campgrounds. This will be supported by a media and communications strategy as well as signage.

5.29 Ensure bylaw is well enforced – fines, 24/7 hotline, clamping and more proactive than in the past

Relevant submission numbers:

13413	13434	13439	13445	13493	13524	13533	13578	13589
13594	13607	13610	13616	13644	13668	13687	13695	13702
13711	13716	13722	13723	13727	13757	13762	13787	13789
13793	13801	13807	13812	13988

5.30 Although not a part of the draft Bylaw under consideration by Council, a number of submitters mentioned the effectiveness of enforcement. They also expressed frustration at the lack of proactive enforcement in the past around freedom camping issues.

5.31 One issue with past enforcement is that enforcement under the existing regime of the Nelson Resource Management Plan (NRMP) has been deemed by Council officers to be both implausible and impracticable.

5.32 Freedom Camping is not defined in the NRMP, enforcement is through a cumbersome Abatement Notice process and appeal of an Abatement Notice actually has to go to the Environment Court. Consequently the NRMP has never been used for management of freedom camping. A letter of assurance will be provided to NZMCA to this effect.

5.33 The approach to the Nelson Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017 will be proactive with regular patrolling in both evening and morning and responding to call-outs by the public. Council will be seeking a detailed implementation plan which is currently under development.

5.34 Clamping is not recommended. Our information from Queenstown is that only one vehicle was clamped. The practice was ceased but the rumour of clamping spread. The practice is not supported for NCC as the enforcement method is not contemplated under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, where the only enforcement is a $200 fine.

5.35 No freedom camping at all in urban areas including carparks

Relevant submission numbers:

13524	13457	13460	13467	13482	13498	13509	13520	13524
13527	13535	13554	13578	13604	13655	13667	13673	13675
13689	13698	13698	13713	13714	13716	13722	13727	13735
13736	13741	13742	13743	13746	13758	13776	13777	13800
13802	13812	13850

5.36 The approach Council is taking to central city carparks allowing a limited number of CSC vehicles, is not opposed by the large majority of submitters. Some confused the recommendations as applying to non-self-contained vehicles, but these are prohibited from public areas.

5.37 Very few submitters supported non-self-contained vehicles in the inner city. The several who supported non-self-contained vehicles discussed freedom of movement, and the culture of embracing our visitors and creating a welcoming environment for them.

5.38 It is recommended that the carpark provisions of overnighting for CSC vehicles only, be endorsed.

5.39 In addition, 8 CSC parks have been removed from Paddys Knob and Centennial Park. There is concern that adequate parking places for CSC vehicles be available city-wide and the removal of these 8 sites may lead to displacement to city streets. It is therefore recommended that 8 additional sites be made available at Buxton carpark (3) and Montgomery carpark (5) for CSC vehicles overnighting from the hours of 10pm (recommended) to 7am or other signposted times which are relevant on the carparks.

5.40 More inclusive – more areas for freedom camping; include non-self-contained vehicles; show leniency to the homeless

Relevant submission numbers:

13528	13592	13729	13758	13752	13755	13756	13757	13759
13785	13786	13816	13824	13825	13830

5.41 A number of submitters called for balance and a more embracing approach to freedom camping in Nelson City.

5.42 The draft Bylaw was prepared after a Freedom Camping Strategic Plan was written in 2016. That Strategic Plan is the broader approach to balancing the opportunity of freedom camping with the need to manage community and environmental effects. The draft Bylaw is only the regulatory part of the wider approach.

5.43 Council agrees that using a Bylaw to regulate social issues such as homelessness is a very blunt tool. Council is facilitating a joined-up approach to the issue of homelessness with other government ministries as its first response.

5.44 Several submitters placed the draft Bylaw’s provisions in the context of civil rights being restricted in relation to freedom of movement.

5.45 The legality of the draft Bylaw was checked by Simpson Grierson in the development stage, and in their opinion was not found to be in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights regarding the approach taken to non-self-contained vehicles. In addition, the matter of breaching freedom of movement was challenged in the court case of NZMCA versus TCDC (CIV-2013-419-955) and the result was that this challenge was not upheld (clause 135).

5.46 Number of nights allowed – either too many or too few

Relevant submission numbers:

13518

13526

13747

5.47 Very few submitters commented on the number of nights indicating that the majority were likely comfortable with the suggested 2 nights.

Other Matters

5.48 There were a range of other matters as follows.

5.49 Hours of overnighting

5.50 The draft Bylaw mentions that CSC vehicles can stay two consecutive nights until 7am after the second night. In discussion with Council’s regulatory team, they felt that there was value in specifying the hours of ‘night’.

5.51 Mrs Jean Tebbutt (No.13712) submitted that the hours should be 10pm to 7am. Mr Bob Geer (No. 13747) suggested 7pm to 7am. 10pm would seem a reasonable suggestion and matches the hours that Tasman District Council is consulting on.

5.52 It is recommended that the draft Bylaw state a specific time for overnighting and this begin at 10pm and be worded as follows:

(a) Insert a new definition of night, “Night: means the time period between 10pm and 7am.

5.53 The Inner-city Zone

5.54 The draft Bylaw mapped an Inner City zone in which CSC vehicles cannot overnight in these city streets, but can in the inner city carparks.

5.55 Apart from general comments regarding support or otherwise for freedom camping in the inner city, the Inner City zone was not specifically submitted on.

5.56 It is recommended that the Inner City zone be retained.

5.57 Virtual Prohibition

5.58 NZMCA submitted that if Council enforced freedom camping through the draft Bylaw as well as through the NRMP, then a virtual prohibition may exist alongside restriction on reserves through various Reserve Management Plans. As outlined earlier in this report, Council received advice in 2016 through the Nelson City Freedom Camping Strategic Plan which was further reinforced in 2017, that enforcement through the NRMP was both implausible and impractical.

5.59 NZMCA seems satisfied with Council’s assurances that it will not attempt to use the NRMP for freedom camping enforcement as well as the Bylaw, and appropriate assurance will be given to them.

5.60 There are a large number of reserves in Schedule 1 ‘Prohibited’ for clarity to public and visitors. This looks very prohibitive in approach but the reality is that a large majority of these reserves do not have carparking on the reserve, and this is a design feature that the City will need to consider with future reserves. In practice, vehicles park on the residential streets around the reserves, and so too can the CSC vehicles. The value of including all these reserves in the Schedule is also to clarify that tenting is not permitted on the reserves.

5.61 Possessions spreading out in public places

5.62 Many submitters were concerned about the sprawl of private possessions (including washing lines, tables, chairs, and various other belongings) in carparks. One submitter suggested that wording be inserted that both vehicle and possessions need to be within one parking space.

5.63 The following amendment is recommended:

(a) Delete Schedule 2 e) and replace with “All vehicles being used for freedom camping must be legally parked and any possessions associated with freedom camping contained within a single, defined carparking space. If undefined, vehicles must park in a courteous manner to allow other vehicles to also park within the signposted area, with all possessions no more than 1 metre from the vehicle in any direction”

5.64 Reserves identified as not administered by Council

5.65 Several reserves were identified as not belonging to Council and will be removed from the Schedules. These are Norgate Reserve and Wakapuaka Sandflats Carpark.

5.66 Pikimai was identified by a submitter as under the ownership of the Diocesan. In fact this carpark is a mix of both NCC and Diocesan ownership and the site will be retained in Schedule 1.

5.67 Norgate Reserve is owned by NZTA and will be removed. Wakapuaka Sandflats Carpark is owned by DoC and will be removed.

5.68 Abuse of self-containment stickers

5.69 A number of submitters noted that the blue self-containment stickers were being abused, e.g. fake photocopies stuck onto vans.

5.70 The self-contained stickers are not particularly relevant to enforcement officers. Officers are required to sight the certification documents and through experience, can also determine the configuration of the vehicle’s facilities.

5.71 Site Assessment

5.72 A number of submitters, including Dr Grant, questioned the Site Assessment either in terms of its treatment of the three criteria or the subjective nature of the document. Dr Grant’s verbal submission concluded that it was useful but not definitive in making a decision. In contrast, NZMCA have praised the approach and it is recognised as being on the end of best practice.

5.73 The Hearing raised new information particularly in regards to Paddys Knob and Centennial Park which have been discussed with recommendations. The Site Assessment will be updated with new information on those sites, as will Council’s information databases which do not contain much of this local knowledge.

5.74 The Site Assessment is a new tool in local government and this NCC document is the second of its kind in New Zealand and an improvement over the only other comparable document. Most bylaw processes have not taken such a structured approach to assessing sites.

5.75 There is room for improvement. In speaking with Dr Grant following the Hearing, it was agreed that there is an opportunity to develop the Site Assessment methodology nationwide and a gap in this part of the Bylaw process. With the three criteria in the Act there are limitations on what can be considered. The author of the Site Assessment has agreed to take the need to develop this assessment methodology to a national forum on freedom camping which the author is a contributor to.

Other Reserves Re-assessed

5.76 NZMCA queried a number of other scores in the Site Assessment and the reasons the reserves had been prohibited. These have been reassessed and no change is recommended. These sites were:

(a) Trafalgar Centre: The Site Assessment recommended no CSC overnighting and cited resource consent reasons. In reviewing the situation the advice remains the same. The Trafalgar Centre has 2,791 seats provided in the main stadium and 833 available in the northern end, making a total of 3,624 seats. The resource consent for the Trafalgar Centre stipulates 1 park for every 10 seats thereby requiring up to 362 carparks. 285 carparks only are provided and current history of usage figures show that there is frequently a shortage of carparks.

(b) Tahunanui Recreation Reserve: Page 32 of the Site Assessment notes this reserve as prohibited with an Area score of 5 and an Access score of 5. The reasons for the scoring are given in the first paragraph. The concluding sentence is that “Freedom camping is not permitted under the Tahuna Reserve Management Plan 2004” and this sentence will be changed to reflect the actual reasons given for the Area and Access scores on page 32.

(d) Norgate Reserve: It now removed from the Bylaw as it is NZTA land.

(e) Ngawhatu Reserve, Marsden Recreation Reserve, Burrell Park, and Tosswill Reserve are all well used sports grounds with a shortage of parking in the evenings. A feature of Nelson’s historic design of reserves is a general lack of toilet facilities and carparking.

(f) Corder Park: The carpark is used at night for Play Centre meetings, and Pipers Park does not have a carpark.

(g) Pikimai Reserve: This has shared parking with the Cathedral and is not appropriate for CSC. The land ownership is part NCC and part Diocesan.

(h) Haven Road: No change recommended to this parking which is adjacent to Anzac Park - a memorial park of cultural significance.

5.77 Other reserves raised in submissions are answered as followed:

(a) Glenduan Reserve: Adam Currie queried why it is closed at night. This was done in agreement with the local community.

(b) Airport Peninsula: Adam Currie identified opportunities in the area for freedom camping. Unfortunately, access is not available to the public through the Airport.

(d) Delaware Reserve: Mike Pahl discussed this in the context of traditional camping rights. Delaware has only provided public access with the relatively recent subdivision in 2000. This is not recognised as a traditional right.

(e) Maitai Cricket Ground: Dr Henry Kaspar wants the Site Assessment for Maitai Cricket Ground raised from 1 to 3 because residents can harass campers. The recommendation is to retain provision for two CSC vans. CSC vehicle drivers are unlikely to engage in behaviours attracting this type of harassment.

6. Options

6.1 The following table outlines the identified draft Bylaw choices for Council. The table is limited to several key strategic issues: Paddys Knob, Centennial Park, and Inner-City carparks.

6.2 Major Issue Options

Table 1: Major Issue Options

(a) Paddys Knob and Centennial Park
Option 1: Retain Paddys Knob and Centennial Park as areas with restricted access to CSC vehicles between the hours of 10pm and 7am
Advantages	· More areas of Nelson are made available for overnighting to CSC vehicles · The City takes a more welcoming approach to these visitors · Many reasons for prohibiting raised by submitters either do not meet the criteria in the Act very easily, they seem to apply to freedom campers’ behaviour in non-self-contained vehicles, or provide useful information to understand the area. These reasons are not relevant enough to exclude four CSC vehicles between the hours of 10pm and 7am
Risks and Disadvantages	· If Paddys Knob carpark area is redesigned as is needed, making a provision for CSC vehicles now may be short-lived and create even more confusion · If the redesign occurs, then it would require a public consultation to change the Freedom Camping designation on the site · On Centennial Park there is a genuine risk of either public injury from protruding vehicles either onto the road or onto the footpath. Signage cannot effectively instruct that only CSC vehicles under 5m be permitted on the site. Although it could be done, communicating this information effectively to motorhome drivers and then enforcing the restriction, would be extremely problematic
Option 2: Prohibit access to CSC vehicles between the hours of 10pm and 7am at Paddys Knob and Centennial Park
Advantages	· This allows the re-design of Paddys Knob Reserve and new carpark marking to be undertaken as preferred, and without requiring public consultation to change a freedom camping designation · No increased exacerbation of safety at Centennial Park. It is noted that an incomplete footpath configuration in the area is already leading to children and adults being forced onto the road to skirt the unfinished area.
Risks and Disadvantages	· If the redesign comes up with exactly the same configuration on Paddys Knob as at present, then there are few other valid reasons given by submitters under the Act for supporting a CSC vehicle prohibition on this site of 4 vehicles between the hours of 10pm and 7am. · Eight sites are removed from the area for CSC vehicles which could further exacerbate a shortage of sites at peak. This needs to be mitigated.

(b) Inner City Carparks
Option 1: Retain the draft Bylaw provision for 20 carparks made available at Buxton and Montgomery carparks for CSC vehicles overnighting
Advantages	· A balance is struck between provision of adequate vehicle spaces for CSC vehicles at peak against the values expressed by submitters about inner city amenities · The behaviour of CSC vehicle owners is observed nationally to be very good and creates few of the problems outlined by submitters (which are observations supported by photos of non-self-contained vehicle drivers) · Excluding non-self-contained vehicles from overnighting will reduce adverse behaviours, which are identified as reducing amenity values in the inner city
Risks and Disadvantages	· Making the carparks unavailable to CSC vehicles gives more credibility to the argument that the Council is moving toward a virtual prohibition · The behaviour of CSC drivers does not warrant their exclusion from overnighting in carparks · There may be crime risk associated with overnighting and this would have to be at vehicle owners’ risk. A counter-argument is that vehicle presence increases surveillance. · Making the carparks unavailable to non-self-contained vehicles can be seen as unwelcoming and not embracing an international culture in Nelson’s inner-city
Option 2: Increase the draft Bylaw provision to 23 overnighting carparks at Buxton (from 20) and 25 at Montgomery carpark for CSC vehicles (from 20)
Advantages	· This option is designed to mitigate the reduction of CSC vehicle sites made under the draft Bylaw by the potential exclusion of Paddys Knob and Centennial Park sites · It eases the risk of Council moving toward a virtual prohibition
Risks and Disadvantages	· As per Option 1. The increase in numbers will not otherwise impact the carparks overnight.
Option 3: Make the draft Bylaw provision for 20 carparks available at Buxton and Montgomery carparks to both non-self-contained and CSC vehicles on a first-in basis
Advantages	· A cosmopolitan and international feel is enhanced in the inner city · The draft Bylaw becomes more open to the visiting public as an approach · Coromandel statistics show that 97% of all freedom campers are completely compliant with Bylaws
Risks and Disadvantages	· The public has expressed strong views on how they want to see the amenity of their inner city through this submission process and do not support the behaviours associated more strongly with freedom campers in non-self-contained vehicles · The Strategic Plan identified both amenity and environmental issues associated with non-self-contained freedom campers’ ablution behaviours, which would not be resolved by allowing their overnighting on these sites
Option 4: Prevent any overnighting by CSC or non-self-contained vehicles in Buxton or Montgomery carparks
Advantages	· The options further reduces the risk of any behaviours associated with freedom camping in the inner city · The option has some support from submitters · There may be some risk to the safety of CSC vehicle from inner city crime
Risks and Disadvantages	· The behaviours of CSC vehicle drivers nationwide are by-and-large exemplary and will cause almost no inner city problems · Without providing additional parks in the City this will enhance the risk of a virtual prohibition and not adequately cater for vehicles at peak

6.3 Bylaw Options

6.4 Council has a number of options pertaining to the overall draft Nelson City Freedom Camping Bylaw 2017.

Table 2: Bylaw Options

Option 1: Continue with the Bylaw as drafted
Advantages	· The overall approach to the draft Bylaw is supported particularly in relation to CSC and non-self-contained vehicles.
Risks and Disadvantages	· There was a very clear call for a reassessment of several sites by a large number of submitters highlighting some valid points. · The draft Bylaw did not make the overnighting hours clear enough for enforcement officers.
Option 2: Amend the Bylaw to: · Move Paddys Knob and Centennial Park to Schedule 1 · Increase carparks on Buxton and Montgomery Carparks by 8 CSC overnighting spaces · Remove reserves owned by other Government organisations · Define more clearly that “vehicles and possessions” must remain within one parking space on formed parking spaces · Explicitly state 10pm as the beginning hour of overnighting
Advantages	· The approach is responsive to most submitters, compatible with the Site Assessment approach and legal criteria of the Act, makes up the lost CSC parking spaces in appropriate locations, and improves enforcement
Risks and Disadvantages	· The approach may not be supported by NZMCA who may view the loss of Centennial Park and Paddys Knob as decisions based on emotive public reasons which are not valid under the Act

7. Next Steps

7.1 In reaching a decision regarding the proposed Bylaw the Council needs to:

(a) Determine the Bylaw as proposed is consistent with the NZBORA and the most appropriate form of bylaw.

(b) Adopt the Bylaw in whole or in part, amend the Bylaw or withdraw the Bylaw; and

(c) Set out the reasons for any decisions and convey these to submitters (section 82(1)(f) Local Government Act 2002): “That persons who present views to the local authority should have access to a clear record or description of relevant decisions made by the local authority and explanatory material relating to the decisions...”

7.2 The proposed amendments to the Bylaw are all within the scope of the submissions.

7.3 If the Council accepts the recommended option then the following are presented as potential reasons for the decision. The recommended option is to adopt the Bylaw with amendments;

(a) Move Paddys Knob and Centennial Park to Schedule 1 after reassessment of the sites in relation to submissions.

(b) Increase carparks on Buxton and Montgomery Carparks by 8 CSC overnighting spaces due to the loss of parking sites in Paddys Knob and Centennial Park.

(d) Define more clearly that “vehicles and possessions” must remain within one parking space to address daytime issues with amenity values.

(e) Explicitly state night time hours as 10pm to 7am in a new definition to clarify the times.

7.4 Council determines that the Bylaw, as amended, alongside the broader approaches in the Nelson City Freedom Camping Strategic Plan 2016 will achieve the objective of providing a welcoming balanced approach to visitors to Nelson whilst managing the community and environmental effects.

7.5 The Council considers the amended Bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and that it is a reasonable solution to the problems identified.

7.6 Any enforcement of the Bylaw will be carried out by Council Enforcement Officers, who will have the power to ask any person in breach to stop the activity. The consequences for failure to comply with a request of an Enforcement Officer can include warnings of fines under the Freedom Camping Act 2011.

7.7 The implementation date of 1 December is recommended as it will take considerable time to prepare a communications approach, signage, and develop systems, forms and training for enforcement officers.

8. Conclusion

8.1 A new bylaw is the most appropriate manner in which to address the perceived problems in the Nelson City. The recommendation is to amend the draft Bylaw (as detailed above) and then to adopt the amended Bylaw.

Chris Ward

Group Manager Community Services

Attachments

Attachment 1: A1749074 Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw ⇩

Attachment 2: A1729817 - Schedule 3 - Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw maps ⇩

Attachment 3: A1821493 Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw - Staff recommendations ⇩

Attachment 4: A1822099 - Draft Freedom Camping Bylaw - Responses to Elected Members' questions ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Bylaw is the most appropriate and cost-effective manner in which to address the problems which are affecting the community and environmental issues associated with freedom camping in the Nelson City.

Deliberations on submissions allow Council to consider the community views on the draft Freedom Camping Bylaw and make changes to the Bylaw based on this feedback.

2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The recommendations align with our Community Outcomes:

‘Our urban and rural environments are people-friendly, well planned and sustainably managed’, ‘Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient’ and ‘Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement'

3. Risk

There is a risk that Council will make decisions on the draft Bylaw in response to submissions that some submitters do not agree with.

4. Financial impact

The financial impact associated with the Bylaw includes future costs related to enforcement and resources required to administer the Bylaw processes. Budget provision has been made in the 2017/18 financial year but full costs are not yet known. Offsetting these costs will be fines paid. There is a range of performance across New Zealand with areas such as the Coromandel performing the best with only 3% of non-compliance to the Bylaw, and over 80% of fines recovery. This model will be adopted for Nelson.

5. Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Bylaw and the issues it aims to address is of high significance due to community interest. The issues are visible in the community and are polarising. Appropriate consultation has been carried out on this matter.

6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

Māori were consulted through the submission process on the Statement of Proposal. Māori input was also sought in the development of the Nelson City Freedom Camping Strategic Plan 2016 which gives the wider context for the Bylaw.

7. Delegations

The Planning and Regulatory Committee referred to Council its powers relating to a Freedom Camping Bylaw at its meeting on 13 April 2017.