Iwi urges closure of popular Golden Bay freedom camping site

Thursday, 5 December 2019

Nina Krampe and Joran Ebeloe, of Germany, at the Waitapu Bridge freedom camping site in Golden Bay, which had more than 100 vehicles at times last summer.

Ngāti Tama wants a ban on overnight camping at Waitapu Bridge in Golden Bay - a popular spot for freedom campers.

In a submission on the Tasman District Council draft Responsible Camping Strategy, Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust says it is a wāhi tapu (sacred site) and sensitive cultural area for Ngāti Tama.

'It is currently a camping area and must be protected from further degradation and pollution,' the submission says. 'Ngāti Tama therefore seek to prohibit overnight camping at Waitapu Bridge.'

The area is a designated freedom camping site that attracts many campers. At times last summer, more than 100 vehicles were parked at the Waitapu Bridge spot, which has toilets and rubbish disposal.

Tasman District Council has received almost 190 submissions on a draft strategy covering freedom camping.

* Public submissions sought on Tasman's freedom camping strategy

* Call for closure of Golden Bay freedom camping area near bird roosting site

* 'Do Kiwis like stinky people?' Freedom campers bemoan Golden Bay facilities**

In its submission Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust says Ngāti Tama and the council 'worked in partnership to co-design and develop the draft strategy', which recognises the kaitiaki (guardian) role of Ngāti Tama.

'The activity of camping has the potential to affect the natural environment and the hauora (health) of the land,' it says.

Travellers love it but locals aren't quite so enamoured by the freedom camping site at Waitapu Bridge in Golden Bay. This video was first published in January 2019.

That submission was one of 183 on the draft Responsible Camping Strategy that the council received by the November 18 closing date.

Oral submissions were heard at Takaka on Wednesday and Richmond on Thursday. More submissions are due to be heard at Motueka on Friday.

Trish Palmer spoke at Richmond, saying her family enjoyed freedom camping every summer, exploring part of the South Island.

'Motor camps are not an alternative for us, mainly due to cost,' Palmer told the hearing panel.

Parents of a German man, who stayed with Palmer last year, visited New Zealand and hired a self-contained motor home.

'After the first night, they showed us the camp ground receipt, which was $70 for the night even though they were self-contained.'

Freedom campers were not an organised group 'so it's difficult for us to be heard in a meaningful way, creating a risk of one-sided decision making'.

'As with anything negative, stories about poor freedom camping behaviour grow, gathering momentum,' Palmer said. 'I would urge councillors to think about the exaggeration this subject inevitably attracts.'

A council staff report for the hearing panel says common themes from the written submissions included concern about ratepayers funding freedom camping facilities and services; the need for effective enforcement and compliance; a preference for freedom campers to be in self-contained vehicles only; more low-cost camp grounds; concerns about non self-contained vehicles displaying self-contained stickers and competition issues for commercial camp grounds.

'Staff consider that a number of valid points that have merit have been raised in the submissions,' the report says.

However, there was a lack of understanding by some people of the statutory framework.

'Council cannot prohibit freedom camping across the district,' the report says.

James Imlach, of the New Zealand Motor Caravan Association, told the panel that councils could not protect the interests of commercial operators such as camp grounds. In its written submission, the association says the 'rights enshrined in law to access public land should supersede the need to protect the financial interests of local businesses'.

'We doubt the council would ever ban the public from picnicking (for free) in reserves located near commercial cafes, restaurants and other eateries, nor would it prohibit swimming at the beach (for free) to protect the operation of its commercial swimming pools in town.'

Freedom campers Kalle, left, Noelle, Julius, and Lucy, relaxing last December at the Waitapu Bridge site.

Nelson Forests Ltd environmental planner Heather Arnold urged consideration of the fire risk.

'We are very concerned about fire risk to our plantation forests and the Responsible Camping Strategy does not address that,' Arnold told the panel. 'Given the region's experience of the Pigeon Valley fire earlier this year, we are all aware of how quickly fire can spread.'

The assessment criteria should be expanded to consider the potential effects on adjacent land for any site being considered for freedom camping, she said.

In its written submission, Nelson Forests says providing for camping beside plantation forests is 'not sensible, as it could expose both the campers and the forest to unacceptable risks, especially during high fire risk periods'.

Panel deliberations are due to be held at Richmond on Monday.

Meanwhile, a team of freedom camping ambassadors has started work in Tasman District as part of a trial programme running until the end of February. Funded by part of a $168,000 grant from the Ministry of Building, Industry and Employment responsible camping fund, the ambassadors will be in Golden Bay, Motueka and Richmond promoting 'responsible camping' and helping to minimise any negative effect on the local community and the environment.