Coastal residents flare up over freedom camping
Waking up to pristine beach-front views outside a motorhome window is a privilege that many Thames-Coromandel ratepayers feel should come at a cost.
As New Zealand widens its bubble to Australia, residents of some of New Zealand’s busiest freedom camping destinations are pushing back against their council’s policy review, fed up with the ‘‘diabolical behaviour’’ of freedom campers on their coast.
While some submitters to Thames-Coromandel District Council supported freedom campers, the majority were against attracting more – with some even arguing it should be banned.
However, the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association warned the council against making ‘‘major changes’’ to its bylaw without further consultation.
At a recent hearing, 142 submissions were received in response to the council’s review of its Freedom Camping Bylaw 2014 – to be renamed the Responsible Freedom Camping Bylaw.
The proposed changes would see more car parks added to five restricted areas around Thames, Whangamata¯ , Whitianga, and Tairua. It would move three designated areas around Whangamata¯ , Coromandel town, Cooks Beach and Whitianga.
It would also change a prohibited area in Pauanui to restricted and a restricted area at Buffalo Beach to prohibited.
Submitters were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the proposed changes and to make mention of any other sites, not listed, that they wanted to see changed.
‘‘We’ve talked about fines not being effective, campers regularly breaking the allowed stay limit . . . adding more parks wouldn’t help,’’ Tairua resident Tony Jurgeleit said.
Against the idea of council adding more car parks near Paku Drive, he said freedom campers sight their entitlement to freedom, but ‘‘really it’s only free because ratepayers fund them’’.
Tapu Camp owner Bruce Efford said freedom campers were driving down business and ruining prime locations in the area.
With his business less than 1km from the freedom camping site, he said he was forced to reduce his charges to $10 a night, but many campers were still not interested.
He said ratepayers often had to watch the ‘‘campers do their business’’ outside their window rather than the view they pay for.
He said freedom camping sites shouldn’t be 2-3km away from a holiday park.
Other speakers discussed ‘‘diabolical behaviour’’ involving freedom campers lighting fires in restricted areas, leaving their belongings and rubbish behind, as well as destroying council facilities.
Daniel Barne, from Opoutere, ¯ said with the current reduction in overseas freedom campers, there was a ‘‘window of opportunity to eliminate this problem’’.
Whangamata¯ local Wayne Hutt said he doesn’t believe it’s up to the council to give freedom campers ‘‘the best spot in town’’.
‘‘We’ve got ratepayers who pay $25,000 in rates to be on the beachfront and these guys get given a free run,’’ Hutt said.
NZMCA property and policy national manager James Imlach said the assumption that freedom campers weren’t from the district, wasn’t necessarily true.
Of their members around 2000 regularly camped in their ‘‘own backyard’’ meaning they do pay rates for the facilities they use. The only concern the members had was council’s plan to remove the only designated spot at Buffalo Beach.
Coastal locations were preferred areas, he said. He asked that if there was any point where the council was considering amending the bylaw further than what had been discussed – such as adding more restricted areas – that the council ‘‘carefully’’ consider whether those proposals should be consulted on before decisions are made.