Responsibilities
The committee is responsible for regulatory hearings
(required by relevant legislation) on behalf of the council. The
committee is responsible for appointing independent commissioners to carry out
the council’s functions or delegating the appointment power (as set out
in the committee’s policy). The committee is
responsible for regulatory policy and bylaws. Where the
committee’s powers are recommendatory, the committee or the appointee
will provide recommendations to the relevant decision-maker.
The committee’s key responsibilities include:
·
decision-making (including through a hearings process) under the
Resource Management Act 1991 and related legislation
·
hearing and determining objections under the Dog Control Act 1996
·
decision-making under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
·
hearing and determining matters regarding drainage and works on
private land under the Local Government Act 1974 and Local Government Act 2002
(this cannot be sub-delegated)
·
hearing and determining matters arising under bylaws
·
receiving recommendations from officers and appointing
independent hearings commissioners to a pool of commissioners who will be
available to make decisions on matters as directed by the Regulatory Committee
·
receiving recommendations from officers and deciding who should
make a decision on any particular matter including who should sit as hearings
commissioners in any particular hearing
·
monitoring the performance of regulatory decision-making
·
where decisions are appealed or where the committee decides that
the council itself should appeal a decision, directing the conduct of any such
appeals
·
considering and making recommendations to the Governing Body
regarding the regulatory and bylaw delegations (including to Local Boards)
·
regulatory fees and charges
·
recommend bylaws to Governing Body for consultation and adoption
·
appointing hearings panels for bylaw matters
·
review local board and Auckland water organisation proposed
bylaws and recommend to Governing Body
·
set regulatory policy and controls, including performing the
delegations made by the Governing Body to the former Regulatory and Bylaws
Committee, under resolution GB/2012/157 in relation to dogs and GB/2014/121 in
relation to alcohol.
·
engage with local boards on bylaw development and review
·
adopting or amending a policy or policies and making any
necessary sub-delegations relating to any of the above areas of responsibility
to provide guidance and transparency to those involved.
Not all decisions under the Resource Management Act 1991 and
other enactments require a hearing to be held and the term
“decision-making” is used to encompass a range of decision-making
processes including through a hearing. “Decision-making”
includes, but is not limited to, decisions in relation to applications for
resource consent, plan changes, notices of requirement, objections, existing
use right certificates and certificates of compliance and also includes all
necessary related decision-making.
In adopting a policy or policies and making any
sub-delegations, the committee must ensure that it retains oversight of
decision-making under the Resource Management Act 1991 and that it provides for
councillors to be involved in decision-making in appropriate circumstances.
For the avoidance of doubt, these delegations confirm the
existing delegations (contained in the chief executive’s Delegations
Register) to hearings commissioners and staff relating to decision-making under
the RMA and other enactments mentioned below but limits those delegations by
requiring them to be exercised as directed by the Regulatory Committee.
Relevant legislation includes but is not
limited to:
All Bylaws
Biosecurity Act 1993
Building Act 2004
Dog Control Act 1996
Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987
Gambling Act 2003;Land Transport Act 1998
Health Act 1956
Local Government Act 1974
Local Government Act 2002
Local Government (Auckland Council Act) 2009
Resource Management Act 1991
Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Waste Minimisation Act 2008
Maritime Transport Act 1994
Related Regulations
Powers
(i) All
powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities.
Except:
(a) powers that
the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2)
(b) where the
committee’s responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only.
(ii) Power to
establish subcommittees.
Exclusion of the public – who
needs to leave the meeting
Members of the public
All members of the public must leave the
meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a
person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.
Those who are not members of the public
General principles
·
Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to
know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a
person to perform their role.
·
Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must
leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to
perform their role.
·
Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain
only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.
·
In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.
Members of the meeting
·
The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if
the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the
meeting is a committee meeting).
·
However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a
pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.
·
All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a
committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain,
subject to any limitations in standing orders.
Independent Māori Statutory Board
·
Members of the Independent Māori
Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.
·
Independent Māori Statutory Board
members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform
their role.
Staff
·
All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior
management) remain.
·
Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.
Local Board members
·
Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed
in order to perform their role may remain. This will usually be if the
matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.
Council Controlled Organisations
·
Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain
only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled
Organisation.
|
Regulatory
Committee
10 August 2017
|
|
Approaches
to managing freedom camping in Auckland
File No.: CP2017/15422
Purpose
1. To seek a decision on the
preferred approach to manage freedom camping in Auckland.
Executive
summary
2. Freedom
camping in Auckland is generally restricted using legacy bylaw provisions
developed under the Local Government Act 2002. There are 14 designated freedom camping
sites.
3. In
2015, the legacy bylaw provisions were confirmed to prevent the controls from
lapsing while council reviewed its approach to manage freedom camping.
The review has been completed (refer Attachment A).
4. Freedom
camping numbers are growing and community concern and issues are increasing.
The regulatory framework available to manage freedom camping is complex and
inconsistent. Undersupply of freedom camping sites causes overcrowding
and increased tension with local residents over the use of public places.
5. Many
freedom camping harms are regulated but additional management is also needed.
Reducing overcrowding and proactive use of regulatory and non-regulatory tools
can effectively manage freedom camping harms.
6. Staff
have identified four possible approaches to manage freedom camping in Auckland:
· option
one: revoke legacy bylaw provisions, permit freedom camping except on reserves
gazetted under the Reserves Act 1977
· option
two: maintain status quo, restricted freedom camping and use existing
regulations until 2020
· option
three: develop regional bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act 2011, permitted by
default, limit on ability to prohibit and restrict
· option
four: new regional bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002, to manage harms
where they occur, control proportionate to the problem.
7. Staff
recommend option three: manage freedom camping by developing a bylaw under the
Freedom Camping Act 2011. This option:
· addresses
increased demand and associated harms
· enables
proactive management of freedom camping
· provides
for improved enforcement through infringement notices.
|
Recommendations
That the Regulatory Committee:
a) agree
that its approach to manage freedom camping in Auckland is to:
EITHER
i. option
one: revoke legacy bylaw provisions and permit freedom camping by default
except on reserves gazetted under the Reserves Act 1977.
OR
ii. option
two: maintain status quo and use existing regulations including legacy bylaw
provisions until 2020 to manage freedom camping.
OR
iii. option
three: manage freedom camping through a regional bylaw developed under the
Freedom Camping Act 2011 (staff recommendation option).
OR
iv. option
four: manage freedom camping through a regional bylaw developed under the
Local Government Act 2002.
|
Background
Freedom camping numbers are
growing and community concern and issues are increasing
8. Every
summer Auckland receives a large number of local, domestic and international
tourists who camp for free on Auckland Council land in their vehicles, tents
and in the open air. This activity is referred to as ‘freedom
camping’.
9. The
number of freedom campers has grown in recent years, resulting in new
challenges for the council to manage, including increased:
· demand
for freedom camping sites
· pressure
on infrastructure including community facilities
· community
concern and complaints about the impact of freedom camping.
10. Legacy bylaw
provisions established under the Local Government Act 2002 currently manage
freedom camping (refer Attachment B) by heavily restricting where it can occur.
11. There are 14
designated freedom camping sites, with a combined capacity for 107 vehicles.
They are located in the Rodney, Franklin, Hibiscus and Bays local board areas.
12. In October
2015, the council confirmed the legacy bylaw provisions until October 2020 to
avoid them lapsing under transitional legislation (resolution number
GB/2015/11).
13. The council
also indicated that a review should be completed before the required review
date in October 2020. Staff have completed the review (refer Attachment A).
14. To assist
council decision making on its preferred response to freedom camping, the
review report provides detailed information on:
· current
freedom camping patterns and behaviours within the Auckland region
· different
approaches available to the council to manage freedom camping, including both
regulatory and non-regulatory responses
· issues
associated with freedom camping in Auckland
· the
findings of the 2017 freedom camping pilot.
15. The
information in the review has been used throughout this report.
Future
approach to manage freedom camping in Auckland
Complex and inconsistent regulatory framework available
to manage freedom camping
16. The Reserves
Act 1977, the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and the Local Government Act 2002 are
relevant to the management of freedom camping. The policy intent and approach
of each Act differs (refer Attachment C).
17. Approaches to
the management of freedom camping are not consistent across local government.
Auckland’s neighbouring councils have chosen different approaches. Some
use a Freedom Camping Act bylaw and some use a Local Government Act bylaw.
Local Government Act 2002
18. A Local
Government Act bylaw could allow, prohibit or restrict freedom camping. Current
legacy bylaw provisions were made under this Act. A bylaw can be made to:
· protect
the public from nuisance
· protect,
promote, and maintain public health and safety
· minimise
potential for offensive behaviour in public places.
Freedom Camping Act 2011
19. The Freedom
Camping Act 2011 allows freedom camping to occur on any local authority area or
conservation land, unless prohibited by another enactment. The council may not
‘absolutely prohibit freedom camping in its area or district’.
Infringement powers can be used for the breach of a Freedom Camping Act bylaw.
20. Freedom
camping may be restricted or prohibited through a bylaw made under this Act, if
the council is satisfied it is necessary to either protect:
· an
area
· the
health and safety of people who may visit an area
· access
to an area.
21. Restrictions
can also be placed on: the type of vehicle that is permitted, specific timing
restrictions and how many spaces are permitted for vehicles.
The Reserves Act 1977
22. Section 44 of
the Reserves Act 1977 prohibits the activity of camping on gazetted reserves,
except where it is allowed under a reserve management plan.
23. Under the
Reserves Act 1977, a reserve management plan does not apply to local purpose
reserves (including esplanade reserves). Freedom camping on esplanade reserves
is prohibited unless the local purpose classification is changed.
24. It is not
known how many gazetted reserves there are in the Auckland Council region.
Problem definition
25. Freedom
camping is growing throughout New Zealand. Auckland is one of the most popular
areas for campers. They often start or end their stay in Auckland.
26. It is
estimated that during the summer peak period over 320 campers visit Auckland
per day. This estimate includes fee paying and freedom campers.
27. Freedom
camping predominantly happens in two location types: coastal locations near
beaches and around the City Centre. Less popular destinations are those which
have few landscape features or are a considerable distance from the motorway or
tourist destinations.
28. The majority
of freedom campers plan where to stay in advance, particularly international
freedom campers. 69 per cent of freedom campers in Auckland are international
tourists.
Under-supply
of freedom camping sites causes overcrowding and increased tension with local
residents over use of public places
29. The limited
supply of freedom camping sites in Auckland often results in over-crowding of
designated areas and/or illegally camping at popular destinations. Complaints
about freedom camping are increasing and generally outline issues of:
· overcrowding
at existing freedom camping sites and conflict between freedom campers and
other users
· rubbish,
litter or waste generated by freedom campers
· public
space being privatised by freedom campers by placing belongings in and around a
site
· noise
and odours from cooking and generator fumes.
30. The problems
associated with freedom camping can be divided into two problem types.
31. The first
type is managing direct impacts or primary harms. These are intrinsic to the
activity of freedom camping. They are generally unavoidable, though they can be
mitigated to reduce their impact. Primary harms can be summarised as:
· loss
of visual amenity due to presence of campers
· noise
and other emanations, e.g. cooking smells
· conflict
between other users including local residents
· blocked
views
· privatisation
of public space.
32. The second
type is preventing the secondary impacts or harms of freedom camping. These
secondary harms are behavioural, incidental to freedom camping and generally
can be avoided. They are problems that may be caused by freedom campers, day
visitors and/or locals. Secondary harms can summarised as:
· littering
and dumping
· remains
of human waste, including used toilet paper
· environmental
impacts such as pollution of waterways
· public
safety, including the safety of freedom campers
· alcohol
and disorderly behaviour
· traffic
safety issues such as obstructing access to areas.
Many freedom
camping harms are regulated but additional management is also needed
33. The council
already regulates many of the secondary harms using the Unitary Plan and a
range of bylaws. The secondary harms are experienced in Auckland to varying
degrees whether freedom camping is occurring or not.
34. However,
there is a lack of current regulatory and/or non-regulatory tools to manage the
primary harms related to freedom camping which are:
· conflict
of use between users and freedom campers
· privatisation
of a public space
· amenity
impacts, such as a loss of privacy or obstructed views.
Table 1. Summary of
complaints according to harm and approach available to respond
|
Level of harm
|
Impacts
|
Management
|
Approach
|
|
Primary
|
Conflict of use between users and freedom
campers.
|
|
Placing designated parking spaces away
from the most convenient or attractive locations is an effective mitigation
strategy. Restricting the length of time that campers can stay may also help
reduce harms.
|
|
Primary
|
Privatisation of a public space.
|
|
The location and design of future
designated sites could assist in managing this.
|
|
Primary
|
Amenity impacts, such as a loss of
privacy or obstructed views.
|
|
Locating campers away from prime spots
and residential view shafts is an effective way of avoiding these problems.
|
|
Secondary
|
Public safety and nuisance.
|
Auckland-wide under the Public Safety and
Nuisance Bylaw 2013.
|
Noise, fire and obstruction are managed using a graduated response model starting with warnings
and bylaw notices through to prosecutions. Under this bylaw the council does
not have the ability to issue infringements.
|
|
Secondary
|
Litter and dumping.
|
Auckland-wide under the Solid Waste Bylaw
2012
Litter Act.
|
Infringements are given for littering and
the dumping. The fines range from $100 for a first time offender to $400 for
re-offending and dumping of large volumes.
|
|
Secondary
|
Dangerous dogs and dog access.
|
Auckland-wide under the Dog Management
Policy and Bylaw 2012.
|
Animal management officers may issue
fines of $300 and impound animals for unregistered and dangerous dogs, and
breaches of local dog access rules.
|
|
Secondary
|
Noise and vibration.
|
Auckland-wide under the Auckland Unitary Plan.
|
Environmental Health officers and noise
pollution contractors respond to complaints about noise, usually relating to
music and large gatherings. The response differs depending on the zoning, the
noise level, the time and proximity to residents.
|
|
Secondary
|
Alcohol–related harm.
|
Auckland-wide under the Alcohol Control
Bylaw 2014.
|
There are over 700 alcohol bans in
Auckland. The Police enforce all alcohol bans as resources allow and
according to the level of risk. Under this bylaw the police can issue $250
fines.
|
|
Secondary
|
Managing parking demands.
|
Auckland-wide under the Auckland Transport Traffic Bylaw 2012.
|
Auckland Transport uses the traffic bylaw
to regulate times and vehicle conditions at sites. This is mostly done in
urban areas where traffic demands are high.
|
|
Secondary
|
Environmental damage.
|
Auckland-wide under the Auckland Unitary Plan.
|
The rules differ according to the zone
and the form of environmental damage. Water pollution, air pollution, damage
to heritage and illegal discharges may result in prosecution and fines.
|
Reducing overcrowding and proactive use of regulatory
and non-regulatory tools can effectively manage freedom camping impacts
35. Many of the
problems associated with freedom camping can be reduced by pro-active
management. Through the pilot project, staff found that an increase in sites
available and the active management of primary harms (i.e. restrictions and
controls in areas), reduced secondary harms such as rubbish dumping, damage to
grass verges and traffic.
36. During the
pilot project there was a reduction in complaints by almost 35 per cent in
February 2017 compared to the same month in 2016.
37. Some
communities reported that proactive compliance and effective management reduced
conflict with other site users compared with previous years.
38. A Department
of Internal Affairs project concluded that councils are limiting the number of
sites available for freedom camping and that a decrease in supply often results
in overcrowding and an actual increase of harms. It was also found that using
non-regulatory methods along with regulatory tools is successful in managing
freedom camping in many areas.
Managing freedom camping
challenges and opportunities will increase effective management.
39. Challenges
for managing freedom camping are:
· a
shortage of freedom camping areas and an increase in demand results in
overcrowding, illegal camping and, subsequently, primary and secondary harms.
This can have the effect of reinforcing negative perceptions of freedom camping
· insufficient
monitoring and enforcement resources, increases the risk of non-compliance.
This can erode community trust and lead to reputational impacts
· dispersing
campers away from popular sites to less popular sites requires a mix of
regulatory and non-regulatory approaches
· site
selection and community engagement takes time and can be costly
· highlighting
attractions to freedom campers can increase demand for nearby sites
· the
hosting of non-self-contained vehicles is perceived negatively by communities
40. Opportunities
to improve the management of freedom camping are:
· increasing
supply is a cost-effective approach to manage demand and prevent harms such as
overcrowding, conflict of site use and nuisance
· engaging
the community in the design of site-specific rules can lead to high quality
camper and resident experiences
· social
media is a useful tool to disperse campers, manage demand for sites and help
improve compliance rates.
Options
41. Staff have
identified four potential options to manage freedom camping.
Option 1: revoke legacy bylaw
provisions and permit freedom camping by default except on reserves gazetted
under the Reserves Act 1977
42. The council
policy intent would be to permit freedom camping. Existing restrictions on
freedom camping sites would be removed. Freedom camping will be permitted
everywhere in the region, except where controlled under the Reserves Act 1977.
Staff will be reliant on existing bylaw provisions that only manage secondary
harms. There is limited ability to issue infringement notices. Council will be
able to prosecute for non-compliance.
Option 2: maintain status quo
and use existing regulations including legacy bylaw provisions until 2020 to
manage freedom camping
43. The council
policy intent would be to prohibit freedom camping in most areas. Legacy bylaws
provisions will limit freedom camping to 14 sites. Existing regulatory tools
will manage harms. Statutory review required by 2020. There is limited ability
to issue infringement notices. Council will be able to prosecute for
non-compliance.
Option 3: manage freedom
camping through a regional bylaw developed under the Freedom Camping Act 2011
44. The
council policy intent would be permissive towards freedom camping. The option by default permits freedom camping
everywhere except where controlled under the Reserves Act. The Act limits the
council to restrict and prohibit freedom camping to either: protect the area,
protect the health and safety of those who visit the area, and protect access
to an area. Restrictions may include the maximum time a vehicle can stay in a
calendar month, what vehicles are permitted (i.e. non-self-contained or
self-contained) and where vehicles may park overnight. Council
will have the ability to issue immediate infringement notices.
Option 4: manage freedom
camping through a regional bylaw developed under the Local Government Act 2002
45. The
council policy intent would be to manage harms where they occur. Controls will
be developed on the basis of the nature and scale of the problem. There is an
ability to identify where freedom camping is allowed and where it is
restricted. There is limited ability to issue infringement notices. Council
will be able to prosecute for non-compliance.
Options analysis: pros, cons, risks,
and implementation
46. An
analysis of the pros, cons, risks and implementation of all four options has
been undertaken and is contained in Attachment D.
Comparison of options
47. Each
option has been assessed against criteria to help determine a preferred
approach to manage freedom camping.
48. The
assessment criteria is summarised as follows:
· consistency
with central government freedom camping policy – alignment
with central government policy and guidelines on implementing freedom camping
regimes
· potential
to mitigate primary harms and avoid secondary harms –ability to
effectively manage problems associated with freedom camping
· ability
to respond to community and stakeholders –process for enabling the
views and preferences of the community, Māori, stakeholders, and
local boards
· longevity/futureproofing
–durable solution over the short, medium or long term
· ease
of implementation - how effective implementation will be
· cost
to deliver – resources and impact on the council to deliver
operationally.
Table 2 Criteria assessment
|
|
Criteria
|
Option 1
revoke legacy bylaw provisions
|
Option 2
Maintain status quo
|
Option
3
New bylaw under the Freedom Camping Act
|
Option
4
New bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002.
|
|
Policy
|
1.
|
Consistency
with central government freedom camping policy
|
ü
|
û
|
üü
|
-
|
|
2.
|
Potential
to manage primary harms and secondary harms
|
û
|
ü
|
üü
|
ü
|
|
3.
|
Ability
to respond to community and stakeholders
|
ü
|
-
|
üü
|
üü
|
|
Process
|
4.
|
Longevity/futureproofing
|
ü
|
û
|
ü
|
-
|
|
5.
|
Ease
of implementation
|
û
|
ü
|
üü
|
ü
|
|
6
|
Cost
to deliver
|
û
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Rating against
criteria
|
üü
|
ü
|
û
|
-
|
1.
Good rating |
Medium rating
|
Poor rating
|
Neutral
|
Staff recommendation
Option three: Freedom Camping
Act bylaw ranks highest in the assessment and is the staff recommended option
49. Staff
recommend Option three (Freedom Camping Act bylaw) as the highest positive
ranking option against the assessment criteria. This option provides the best
ability to:
· address
increased demand, reduce overcrowding and associated harms
· enables
proactive management of freedom camping
· provides
for improved enforcement through infringement notices.
50. Option three
(Freedom Camping Act bylaw) is the only option that allows the issuing of
immediate infringement notices by compliance officers for primary harms. This
will effectively reduce non-compliant behaviour compared to the other options.
The ability to collect fines may also help fund freedom camping management
costs.
51. Operationally,
managing increased freedom camping activity will become more resource intensive
and reactive under option one (revoke), option two (legacy) and Option four
(Local Government Act Bylaw). Complaints will likely increase with less ability
to reduce non-compliant behaviour through infringement notices.
52. The key
trade-off between preferred Option three (Freedom Camping Act bylaw) and option
two (legacy) and Option four (Local Government Act bylaw) is that freedom
camping is permitted by default and legal tests must be met to prohibit and
restrict. This limits council ability to prohibit and restrict freedom camping.
This trade-off is partially mitigated by the restriction on freedom camping on
gazetted reserves under the Reserves Act 1977.
Consideration
Local
board views and implications
53. Through the
months of December 2016 and January 2017 workshops were held with local boards
to discuss the freedom camping pilot and seek advice about potential sites.
Eight local boards participated.
54. Workshops
with participating local boards took place in May 2017 after completion of the
pilot. Feedback from the local boards included:
· increase
community consultation when deciding future freedom camping sites
· pilot
controls worked well in some areas, such as signage and parking spaces
· some
economic benefits gained from freedom camping, further investigation is
required
· social
media worked well in some but not all areas. Wi-Fi access may be a barrier
· non-self-contained
sites became oversubscribed in urban areas, sometimes causing conflict between
users
· increase
knowledge about managing non-self-contained campers more effectively,
particularly in urban areas.
55. Further
description of the feedback from participating local boards is provided in the
review report.
Māori
impact statement
56. In 2015 at a
previous hui on bylaw topics, mana whenua informed the council that any future
freedom camping should not take place on wāhi tapu. This information and
the sites of significance in the Unitary Plan were used to inform where the
freedom camping pilot sites would be placed. Impact on Māori and treaty
settlement land was assessed. Mana whenua were provided with a list of pilot
sites. Only one response was received back where information was requested
about how legacy bylaws operate in the Waitakere Ranges.
57. Options one,
three and four will enable engagement with Māori about how they wish to
participate in the management of freedom camping. There are potential
environmental and economic impacts that may interest Māori if freedom
camping sites increase. Staff will work with Māori to assessing impact
where activity might be allowed, prohibited or restricted.
58. Assessing
impacts on wāhi tapu and future treaty settlement and Māori land will
be prioritised.
Implementation
59. Options one,
three and four will require a special consultative procedure and the following
steps will occur:
· scoping
document outlining the approach and timeframes
· engagement
with local boards
· a
draft statement of proposal will be presented to the Regulatory Committee and
the Governing Body for approval
· a
graduated enforcement model.
60. If option two
is approved a statutory review consultation could be started now or at any time
before 2020.
61. The
Department of Internal Affairs has highlighted the importance of focusing on
non-regulatory approaches. Staff found through the pilot project that when
regulatory and non-regulatory tools are used, freedom camping can effectively
be managed.
62. Staff will
develop a proactive management approach to compliment graduated enforcement.
Table 4. Estimated cost per option
|
|
Option 1 – revoke
legacy bylaw provisions
|
Option 2 –
maintain status quo
|
Option 3 - bylaw under
Freedom Camping Act
|
Option 4 – bylaw
under Local Government Act
|
|
Process costs:
|
$50,000
|
$50,000
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
|
Deliverables (e.g. maps, or
signage)
|
Nil
|
$30,00 (if enhanced
monitoring occurs)
|
Upwards of $100,000
|
Upwards of $100,000
|
|
Staff resources:
Policy
Licensing and Compliance
|
.5 FTE (formal consultation
to revoke)
|
0.5 FTE (when review
consultation occurs)
|
1.5 FTE (ongoing until
adoption)
|
1.5 FTE (ongoing until
adoption)
|
|
Each option will require a
graduated enforcement model, and a proactive management approach to address
the harms associated with freedom camping.
|
Attachments
|
No.
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
a⇩ 
|
Managing freedom camping in Auckland findings report
|
21
|
|
b⇩
|
Existing freedom camping sites and legacy bylaw
provisions
|
79
|
|
c⇩ 
|
Default legal position under each option
|
81
|
|
d⇩
|
Options analysis tables
|
83
|
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Puawai Kake - Policy Analyst
Daniel Pouwels - Principal Policy Analyst
|
|
Authorisers
|
Kataraina Maki - GM - Community & Social Policy
Penny Pirrit - Director Regulatory Services
|
