This involves firstly identifying what the problems really are and then looking for effects-based solutions.
It's important at the outset to draw a distinction between self-contained vans and those rented by outfits like Spaceship and Wicked, or for that matter the old cargo van with a mattress chucked in the back.
To my mind, there can be little objection to a self-contained van almost anywhere.
This is a mode of travel that promotes long, slow appreciation of our country, which is surely a better way than the "if this is Tuesday, this must be Milford Sound" approach.
So, do we need to restrict these vehicles, and if so how and where?It is interesting to note that campground owners are often at the forefront of opposition to freedom camping.
This self interest is reasonably transparent and probably understandable, but is assisting the local campground's revenue stream really a valid basis for local body bylaws? After all, we don't ban eating in public places to encourage business at local restaurants.
Local body approaches to self-contained vans vary.
Many turn a blind eye or do not actively enforce restrictions.
Some would like to enforce restrictions but lack the resources to do so.
The Dunedin City Council, while not having a bylaw, publishes a pamphlet directing camper vans to commercial camping grounds and implying that freedom camping is not allowed.
On the other hand, Paihia, in the Bay of Islands, has a pay and display car park near the town centre that has toilet facilities for an overnight rate of a few dollars.
This has the effect of directing camper vans to a preferred location where they are not going to get moved along, but without the expense of a campground.
After all, it is easy to see why someone who is paying up to $200 a day for a van that has toilet and cooking facilities onboard may resent paying another $70 to stay in a camp.
So, what is the right or wrong place for a camper van? I'd argue there are very few wrong places for a fully self-contained van.
I once spent a night in a van parked on a suburban Auckland street.
I'm sure the neighbours neither knew nor cared whether the van was occupied or just parked there, empty, overnight.
Perhaps there should be a restriction on how many vans can congregate.
You may not see any effect from one van parked in your street, but a dozen may be an issue.
So, rather than an outright ban, a limit on parking overnight within, say, 100m of another van (or perhaps two vans) could work.
It would also be reasonable to restrict stays outside camping sites to a single night.
A less strict regime could be applied at suitable informal sites.
It's not uncommon to see camper vans overnighting in the car park at Bayfield Park.
I suspect it has been identified on the travellers' grapevine.
A few vans at a time there don't seem to cause problems.
The non-self-contained vehicles require a different approach.
Their users tend to be younger, more impecunious, less likely to conform with a strict regulatory regime and more likely to be comfortable roughing it.
Directing them to commercial campgrounds simply won't work.
Banning them seems to be a step that would be unlikely to be taken at a national level.
The solution would be to identify sites where they really do no harm.
Given that toileting is the major issue, perhaps a requirement to be within 100m of a public toilet would be reasonable.
The car park at Customhouse Quay could be a suitable site.
What is important is that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Camper vans are a valid and popular way to have a holiday.
Any controls on them must be reasonable and based on effects, not nimbysism or commercial interest.
• David Barnes is a Dunedin writer who once had a camper van holiday
