Discussions about the risks of losing the right to freedom camp and how to counter these.
 #122006  by Mark
 Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:18 pm
WoodyZ wrote:
Mark wrote:That's what I thought, Neil - although you could stay two nights in a row (and continue with alternate nights) as long as the two nights were either side of the end of a month :mrgreen:
Good point Mark, I missed that.

Of course, their intent might be that if you stay for one night you have to stay for two, as in a compulsory minimum of two nights.

My high school English teacher would never have countenanced such sloppy sentence structure, come to think of it, my long departed mum wouldn't have either.
Well, they don't have it alone, Neil. You may have noticed that Opotiki have banned FC throughout their district without realising it.

(A bit like what you'd end up with if Trump had written the Constitution :D )
 #122011  by Zukiwi
 Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:04 pm
Mark wrote:Their bylaw does not look like an FCA bylaw. It is part (section 8) of a Consolidated bylaw.
They claim, in the penalties section, that they can use the FCA infringement regime, so maybe it is.
http://www.hauraki-dc.govt.nz/assets/co ... Safety.pdf

It is an FCA bylaw (not to say it is a good one or even really compliant):

"Hauraki District Council Consolidated Bylaw: Part 3 (Public Safety) 2
The purpose of Part 3 of the Bylaw is to ensure that acceptable standards of safety, convenience, visual amenity and civic values are maintained for the well-being of inhabitants and visitors to the district.
This Part of the Bylaw is made pursuant and subject to the Local Government Act 2002, the
Litter Act 1979, the Health Act 1956, the Dog Control Act 1996, the Sale of Liquor Act 1989, the Reserves Act 1977, the Freedom Camping Act 2011 and
the Electricity Regulations 1997. "

This is a good example of how important it is to read all the relevant legislation/bylaws to interpret their import, especially poorly drafted ones like this.

 #122020  by Mark
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 6:55 am
Yes, I saw that, John, but realised that (even after all this time) I didn't actually know what was specifically required in the bylaw to make it an FCA bylaw.

So, it's as simple as adding the words "This bylaw is made pursuant and subject to the Freedom Camping Act 2011".

Makes you wonder why councils have been tussling with it for so long when they can just add these words to their existing bylaws and immediately have access to the infringement regime....

I wonder, too, if it is reasonable, for a bylaw to be written so poorly that the public must essentially become conversant with constitutional law by reading and understanding various acts of parliament in order to discover if they are allowed to park in this place overnight.
 #122027  by petercw
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:58 am
I just get so confused with these bylaws that I'm starting to miss some counties out.. At one recent Lake in the south island where we are at present I parked where the GPS said OK.. The next morning a guy comes along and takes down the confusing sign and puts up a map.. And yes we were in the wrong place.. But it didnt say what was the right place!.. :?
Two nights ago we were at a bay where the sign said no camping and no caravans.. So I asked the local council guy that was doing signs around there if we're OK.. No that means you too...
Fortunately he was a motorhome owner too, so let us stay overnight.. Before he changed the sign to a new one. So i didn't see what the new ones were.. :o
 #122034  by Zukiwi
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:32 pm
Mark wrote:So, it's as simple as adding the words "This bylaw is made pursuant and subject to the Freedom Camping Act 2011".

Makes you wonder why councils have been tussling with it for so long when they can just add these words to their existing bylaws and immediately have access to the infringement regime....
No it's not as simple as that Mark. A council can't just simply add those words to an existing LGA bylaw. It must go through the full consultative process and justify the bylaw in the context of the FCA criteria (section 11). Hauraki DC did this in 2013 (remember, you and I attended the hearing and presented a submission on behalf of the forum) and is currently undertaking a review to address discrepancies with some of its reserve management plans.

 #122035  by Mark
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:49 pm
Yes, I do recall that, now you mention it.
I recall they thought, at the time, that what their bylaw said was less important than how their officers were going to police FC. Clearly we failed to change their minds on that :?

So all the consultation, required for an FCA bylaw, appears to be just going through the motions if all they can come up with in the whole district is Ray's Rest and two council carparks (useable weekends only).
 #122044  by Zukiwi
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:19 pm
Probably need to take a big picture view here, as well as some first principles.

The FCA (s. 10 (b)) says that FC is permitted in any local authority area unless restricted or prohibited by an FCA bylaw (s. 11) or by some other enactment. (my emphases).

Hauraki DC's FCA bylaw only prohibits FC (Schedule 10) at one site (southern Ray's Rest). It only restricts FC (Schedule 11) at northern Rays Rest (CSC only, 2 night maximum per month).

In addition camping is prohibited on all council reserves in the district due to the conditions of their reserves management plan (Reserves Act - another enactment). This is the issue currently being reviewed.

By definition (S. 10 FCA) FC is permitted on all other council land in the district (roads, streets, etc), subject to S. 10 (b). But clause 2.5.1 (b) of the Part 3 Public Safety Bylaw (made under the Local Government Act - another enactment) states that no person shall:

"b) camp in an area not set aside for that purpose for a period exceeding one overnight stay in any one calendar month." (my emphasis).

So you can camp on those other council places (excluding reserves), but for 1 night only. I would opine that the council can't use the infringement fee provisions of the FCA for this particular clause though, as it isn't made under the FCA.

The issues of the camping sites supposedly restricted under the list of dump stations in both the bylaw and the council's FC policy appears not to be authorised by any bylaw and in my opinion, appears to have questionable legal validity. Note that the bylaw states after the end of Schedule 11:

"List of Dump Stations within the Hauraki District
(Please note that this list does not form part of the bylaw and is for information
purposes only.)"
(my emphasis).

Regardless of what the policy says, it will always be trumped by the bylaws.

In summary, camping in the Hauraki District is probably not quite as limited or prohibitive as it might first seem. But it is still quite restrictive due to the overlapping controls under the Reserves, LGA and FC acts. It is also a matter of opinion if this is a reasonable use of the LGA to trump the FCA.

 #122045  by Mark
 Thu Dec 15, 2016 4:29 pm
Thanks John.

It's apparent that I've forgotten most of what I used to know (or thought I knew).

It seems that, unless you are prepared to take an iSite volunteer's word for where you can stay (and in my experience most of them don't know either), you need to be on the Chen Palmer team. :roll:
Pay with Paymate Express