This page created
8 August 2002 / last modified 21 January 2003
Pc 127
Rakaia Valley
Canterbury Land District
Tenure review yet to be approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands
Public Access
New Zealand
31 July 2002
Commissioner of Crown Lands
C/- DTZ New Zealand
P O Box 142
Christchurch
Submission on Double Hill Tenure Review Preliminary Proposal
Public Access New Zealand wishes to make comment on the following aspects of the Preliminary proposal -
We support the submissions of Forest & Bird and Federated Mountain Clubs (link), in particular the need for clear delineation of marginal strips as an integral part of tenure review, the necessity for further public easements for high country access, and the desirability for landscape protection over proposed freehold. In the latter respect we note that the CCL's advice to Knight Frank on 5 April 2000 concerning the Alphaburn tenure review that "the CPLA allows the Commissioner to address landscape issues in making decisions. This means that the Commissioner needs specific advice on this aspect and that advice must now be provided". That requirement, being an obligation under the CPLA, hasn't been fulfilled on Double Hill.
Double Hill Run Road
The DOC Conservation Resources Report (2.6.1) stated -
"Legal access to the pastoral lease is possible from the downstream or Raikaia Gorge end of the property via a legal road following most of the distance the formed Double Hill Road and a side road, Ensors Road. According to the cadastral map, however, this connection between legal road and formed road finishes at the homestead and does not continue on west to Glenfalloch from where Ensors Road diverges from the Double Hill Road".
DOC's recommendations (4.3, no. 4) were "to investigate the current state and the requirements for providing legal access to the upper Rakaia valley including to Glenfalloch and Manuka Point Stations and for recreational use to the upper Rakaia (by vehicle by formed road)".
In a 'Note for File' of 1 March 2001, Roger Lough recorded in a consultation with the holder, point 11, "Ben and Alistair wondered whether the proposed easement [over the formed road] could be better dealt with as a new legal road. We indicated that this approach may prolong the review and may be unacceptable to the Commissioner. They [then] indicated that the easement as proposed was acceptable".
Contrary to DOC's initial recommendation, it does not appear that investigations as to "the current state" of the road have been undertaken. It also appears that consideration of the legal status of the road has been confined to matters of survey record. Our knowledge of roading law leads us to the view such an approach is flawed.
The 'legal' status of public roads does not depend on survey action or on their delineation on survey records. Legality depends on dedication. Public roads can exist without being shown on survey plans or certificate of title diagrams. Roads can be expressly or implicitly dedicated or created through the actions of landowners, a roading authority OR the public, without any effort being made to define or fix the position of such roads through survey action. The Auckland City Council has spent $M1.5 in legal fees reaffirming this long established common law principle in regard to roads on Waiheke Island.
Reference:
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/judicial-committee/2002/rtfjudgments/manowa~3.rtf
We believe that the proposed easement in gross over formed roads is a dangerous step that implicitly extinguishes any underlying legal status that may exist (easements cannot exist over public roads). The easement does not provide equivalent rights and security of public use. The proposed temporary suspension (provision 6) is totally unacceptable. DOC should have no discretion to close public access to what will become the only legal access to Glenfalloch and Manuka Point Stations, and for matters that have nothing to do with the road. The contemplated action appears to be contrary to the CCL's duty to the securing of public access under section 24(c) CPLA.
It is crucial that the legality of this road is determined and confirmed as part of this tenure review. The lessee has expressed a wish that this occur. It is clearly also in the interests of adjoining lessees that this happens. We wonder what liabilities the CCL will create for himself if he cuts off legal road access to these two stations. It certainly is in the interests of the public wishing to access the whole upper Rakaia catchment, including extensive public lands along the alps, to have legal road status confirmed or created. There is no necessity to unduly delay the review by taking the actions we recommend below.
We submit that:
1. Local authority and CCL pastoral land records be inspected to determine if either express or implied dedication as public road has already occurred.
2. If no such evidence is found, or uncertainty remains over dedication, a new dedication is instigated. This would require exchange of letters between the CCL and lessee that they both agree to it immediately becoming a public road, and acceptance by the public by user.
We note that survey definition is planned for the easement, therefore no additional effort or delay would be necessary to define this as a road rather than as easement. As noted above, survey is not required for 'legality', but as survey actions will be taken as part of tenure review, the road alignment may as well be defined at the same time.
As the formed road(s) leading to Glenfalloch and the Rakaia River do not remotely approximate the cadastral position of unformed roads in this locality, there is no necessity to undertake road stopping actions as part of road dedication along the formed roads. The lessee's preference that this is dealt with as a new legal road is the most appropriate and expeditious action to take.
Reference (appended):
Proof of dedication as public road. A brief guide.
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Researcher and Co-spokesman
APPENDIX
Proof of dedication as public road
A brief guide
Bruce Mason
Public Access New Zealand, June 2002
Dedication is the key requirement for creation of public roads.
Before there can be a dedication, there must be "animus dedicandi". This means intention of setting apart for a particular purpose e.g. opening to public use a road on private land and the public availing themselves of it. The effect of dedication is that the freehold of the road is transferred to the district council.
A landowner's intention may be openly expressed in words or evidence as to the acts and behaviour of the person concerned when viewed in light of all the surrounding circumstances. Acceptance by the public requires no formal act of adoption by any persons or authority and such acceptance may be inferred from public use of the way in question. It is however necessary, even if dedication is established, to prove that the way has been thrown open to the public and used by them.
Lessees of Crown land are not deemed to be capable of dedicating roads. This requires the lessor's consent.
These days an intention by a landowner to dedicate a public road is usually by express action. This usually involves statutory law, but does not require this. Many historic roads are derived from informal actions and practices covered by common law.
In the absence of express dedication, a lack of challenge to public use over an extended period may be taken as implied dedication. The Courts are the final arbiters in a dispute. If no dispute and the following evidence is available, it will usually be safe to assume a road to be 'legal'. Survey action may be necessary, as a confirmation of alignment. However, contrary to popular belief, a road does not need survey to make it 'legal'. It may not even be shown on the official survey record. It is dedication that is the key to legality.
This is what to look for in district council records, and on the LINZ Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) and LINZ files. All of the following are not required for dedication to occur -
Express Dedication
Implied dedication
Proof of alignment
Survey 'monuments' are required:
The above evidence may also be shown on early survey office plans. If so, further survey action may not be necessary.
Once dedication as a road is confirmed AND the alignment of a road is certain, THEN any member of the public is entitled to pass and repass without hindrance at any time.
Reference:
http://www.publicaccessnewzealand.org/files/public_roads_guide.html
Royal Forest and Bird Protection
Society
PO Box 2516
Christchurch Mail Centre
25 July 2002
Commissioner of Crown Lands
C/o DTZ NZ Ltd
Land Resources Division
PO Box 142
Christchurch
SUBMISSION ON PRELIMINARY TENURE REVIEW PROPOSAL
FOR DOUBLE HILL, SOUTH BANK OF RAKAIA RIVER
1. INTRODUCTION
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Forest and Bird) is New Zealand's oldest and most active voluntary conservation organisation. Formed in 1923 the Society has around 38,000 members in 56 branches around New Zealand. This evidence is on behalf of the Central Office. The Society's constitution requires it to:
"take all reasonable steps within the power of the Society for the preservation and protection of indigenous flora and fauna and natural features of New Zealand for the benefit of the public including future generations."
"Protection of natural heritage includes indigenous forests, mountains, lakes, tussocklands, wetlands, coastline, marine areas, offshore islands and the plants and wildlife found in those areas."
2. PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
Forest and Bird understands the preliminary proposal for Double Hill to be:
3. GENERAL COMMENTS
Forest and Bird generally supports the preliminary proposal and the proposed boundaries between new conservation and freehold land and congratulates all the parties involved.
Double Hill is part of a spectacular and outstanding landscape. Turtons Saddle area, the high Rakaia faces, Glenariffe-Double Hill Streams, Round Hill catchment, Smite and Godley Valleys, the lower slopes of Mt Catherine and part of the Double Hill roche moutonee will be a significant addition to the conservation estate. It is disappointing, however, that the proposal does not protect the outstanding landscape and natural values on the lower Rakaia faces and the valley floor fans and flats through a covenant prohibiting exotic forestry.
4. COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL
1. Marginal strips should be shown
Marginal strips are not shown on any of the maps which are part of the preliminary proposal or on any other material released under the Official Information Act. The Department of Conservation advised the Commissioner's agent that "it is unable to provide unequivocal advice on whether or not marginal strips will apply to the streams on Double Hill pastoral lease."
Forest and Bird is concerned that if proposed marginal strips are not clearly identified in the preliminary proposal, they may not be laid off. A large amount of work and checking of legal status goes into the development of preliminary proposals. Standard Operating Procedures are used to help ensure all legal formalities are completed in the appropriate order and to timelines.
If identification, survey and laying off of marginal strips is left to DoC to do after each individual proposal has been finalised and signed off by LINZ and the Commissioner, this creates a heavy financial burden on DoC because of the survey costs involved. It also risks creating a sizeable backlog of survey work which is not urgent, because there is no deadline, and which is left undone in the face of other priorities and "falls between the cracks." Years later members of the public may face difficulties in getting access along a waterway because no marginal strip exists.
The history of land improvement agreements in Canterbury has been that considerable areas have not been retired and due legal processes completed, despite fencing and development grants to landholders. Public Access New Zealand has raised concerns over DoC and the Commissioner's failure to lay off marginal strips, as section 24 of the Conservation Act requires, when Canterbury pastoral leases have been renewed.
While the marginal strips do not take effect until the freehold is transferred to the current lessee, identifying and mapping them on the preliminary proposal would assist submitters. It would enable gaps in public access to or along waterways to be determined and additional easements sought if necessary. It would also provide a check to ensure marginal strips are established.
There is no point in DoC and the Commissioner preparing and using voluminous SOPs for tenure review if these do not ensure that s24 of the Conservation Act is implemented and marginal strips are laid off as an integral part of the tenure review process. The field inspection, legal checking and survey costs should be a legitimate part of tenure review.
Decision sought
That the Commissioner direct his agents and DoC to:
2. Public access easements
Forest and Bird supports the submission on the preliminary proposal by David Henson (20.7.02) for Federated Mountain Clubs and the request for additional access to the Godley Peak tops and via the Smite and Swin Rivers.
FMC has demonstrated that there is already considerable recreational use of the area. The spectacular landscapes of the area and their relative proximity to Christchurch mean that increased recreational use is likely. The land's status as pastoral lease means that it has not been extensively promoted. Once the conservation status of these areas is publicised their popularity is likely to increase.
Decision sought
Provide an additional easement for a second access route to the Godley Peak tops from Ensors Road to the foot of the large bush gully at grid reference NZMS 260 K35 grid reference 718 644 then up the spur east of the gully to reach the boundary fence at grid reference 724 627 as requested by FMC.
Ensure there is practical access to the upper Smite River and to the North Branch of the Swin River.
3. Sustainable management covenants needed to prevent exotic forestry
The Double Hill roche moutonee, the valley floor fans and flats, and lower faces of Double Hill proposed for freeholding are a key part of the spectacular and dramatic landscape of the Rakaia Valley. The relative lack of obvious tracking and the absence of exotic forestry have helped maintain these high landscape values. Shelterbelt and forestry plantings would be a major visual disruption - breaking up and obscuring the glacial landforms and compromising views. They also create a potential wilding spread problem and shade out indigenous grasses and herbs.
The Conservation Resources Report (27 May 1997) recommended that three areas including the "Double Hill" landform be protected by covenants because of their outstanding landscape values. The report recommended controls or prohibition of tree planting, cultivation, tracking, and shrub clearance. These recommendations have not been implemented in the preliminary proposals. Such covenants are needed because of the inadequate or non existent controls on forestry under the Resource Management Act (RM Act) 1991. These fails to protect the landscape values identified in the Conservation Resources Report. Freeholding without covenants prohibiting forestry is opposed.
The landscape sympathetic management of the current lessee is acknowledged and appreciated. Any future change in ownership of the Double Hill property means there is no guarantee that such management will continue. The RM Act and the Ashburton District Plan do not provide adequate mechanisms to control forestry. The discussion of the district plan provisions in the Conservation Resources Report is incorrect given the changes that have occurred as a result of appeals to Environment Court.
Shelter belt and woodlot planting (up to 5 ha) on the lower Rakaia faces, and Double Hill fans and flats is a permitted activity provided specified wilding prone species are not used. No resource consent is required because this area is in "shelterbelt area" identified in the plan. (See Map 1 Shelterbelt areas attached).Accordingly the Council can exercise no control on woodlot or shelterbelt plantings under the RMA.
Nor does the Ashburton District Plan discourage forestry in the Rural C high country zone because forestry is only a discretionary, rather than a non-complying activity for plantings of more than 5 ha or plantings outside the "shelterbelt areas". There is no requirement that resource consent applications be notified so public views on forestry's impacts may not even be considered if forestry is contemplated.
If shelter is required for stock this could be achieved using indigenous shrub species such as matagouri which are characteristic of the area. The dark green of exotic conifers is unsympathetic to and out of place in the upper Rakaia landscape.
Double Hill landform
The Conservation Resources report said:
"Double Hill is a highly visible and very distinctive discrete natural landform feature of the upper Rakaia valley. It is immediately adjacent to the wide braided Rakaia riverbed of international importance and outstanding natural landscape value at a regional level. It is the only landform of its kind and size in the whole of the upper Rakaia valley."
It said "there should be no tree planting or around the hill."
While some of the shrubland areas and the wetland are to be protected as conservation land, forestry on the remainder of the Double Hill landform would be a major intrusion.
Decision sought
Make the freeholding subject to a sustainable management covenant under section 97 CPLA which prohibits exotic afforestation on the Double Hill roche moutonee and in the notch in the area marked on Map 2 attached.
4. Rakaia flats and alluvial fans
The Conservation Resources Report recommended a covenant to retain the open grassland character of the flats and to preserve views of the Rakaia River and faces in their entirety.
It said:
"The open treeless nature of these grassy flats is crucial to public appreciation of the spectacular upper Rakaia valley, in particular views of the highly distinctive Double Hill and the glacially smoothed rectilinear lower slopes of the Palmer Range from Double Hill Run road and from the Rakaia riverbed.
"Riverflats with apparently natural cover such as these are no longer common as cultivation, tree planting and subdivision occur and those that remain as part of wider natural landscape are worthy of protection from development."
"The alluvial fans are large and well-defined natural landscape elements of the upper Rakaia valley floor, particularly the large grass-covered fan or classic form under Mt O'Connor, despite subdivision fencing and pasture improvement. All other large alluvial fans such as these in the upper Rakaia have been substantially modified by cultivation, subdivision into paddocks and shelter-belt planting."
Forestry and shelter belt plantings would be an obvious disruption in the landscape, gridding its expansive tawny character with lines of dark green trees. They would block views from the road and destroy the integrity of the one remaining large alluvial fan.
As the Conservation Resources report said: "Tree planting is probably the greatest threat to the landscape values of the flats, which would totally alter the open treeless grassland character and reduce the vastness that is distinctive of the valley floor. The main threat to the alluvial fans is cultivation and tree planting, obscuring and fragmenting their natural form. Panoramic views, and views of Double Hill and the full height and length of the striking Rakaia Faces which can currently be enjoyed could be greatly reduced or completely lost."
Forestry on fans and flats could deplete streams and wetlands of water. Trees could cause a major wilding spread problem. These impacts could be avoided by a sustainable management covenant under section 97 of the Crown Pastoral Lands Act which prohibited exotic afforestation. The dense matagouri cover on the Station Creek fan also contributes substantially to landscape and conservation values and should be retained.
Decision sought
Make the freeholding subject to a sustainable management covenant under section 97 CPLA which prohibits exotic afforestation on the Rakaia fans and flats marked on Map 2 attached and protects the matagouri on the Station Creek fan from clearance.
5. Rakaia faces
The freeholded area of these faces from the Rakaia valley floor to the fence and proposed freehold/conservation land boundary between Donald Hill Stream and Double Hill Stream are striking in their size, regularity and form. They inspire awe and are a vivid indication of the valley's glacial history. They can be seen from the other side of the Rakaia Valley on the Algidus Road. Currently they appear relatively natural and unfragmented. Tree planting and associated tracking would disrupt this, fragment the faces and cause major visual scarring. The faces on Double Hill comprise three quarters of this landform in the Rakaia valley. They deserve protection from tree planting.
The Conservation Resources report described their outstanding landscape values thus:
"These hill faces comprising 12 km of the total 16 km length of this landform type, are considered to be the most important natural element of the ranges on the south side of the Rakaia River, despite pasture improvement and subdivisional fencing. Their huge size, and their total length (including Mt O'Connor) , their uniformly and vividly glacially smoother surface, their rectilinear form, and the straight run runnels and gorge-like rock gullies incised in their surface combine to make them highly distinctive and impressive landforms, creating a very powerful visual image." (my emphasis).
Decision sought
Make the freeholding subject to a sustainable management covenant under section 97 CPLA which prohibits exotic afforestation and tracking on the faces marked on Map 2 attached.
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission.
Eugenie Sage
Regional field officer
For Conservation Manager
Attachments
Map 1 from "Shelter belt areas" where shelter belts and woodlots up to 5 ha (provided specified wilding prone species are not used) are a permitted activity.
Map 2 Areas requiring sustainable management covenants.
A SUBMISSION FOR FMC ON THE DRAFT PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR
DOUBLE HILL PASTORAL LEASE
Our Interest in this Tenure Review
Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand (Inc) is the national association of mountain recreation clubs. We have been established for 71 years and have 98 member clubs and groups with approximately 12,000 individual members.
In Canterbury, we have 15 member clubs and groups with approximately 2000 members. Many of these are regular users of the pastoral high country.
For more than 20 years, FMC has campaigned for reformation of the pastoral lease system to allow farming where sustainable and return of the bulk of high land to the Public Estate. We have no doubt that many of the wider public share our vision for the future South Island high country.
Recreational Overview - The Ashburton High Land
The DOUBLE HILL Tenure Review is part of a wider land use issue.
From a recreational viewpoint the block of high land bounded by the upper Rakaia River, the upper South Ashburton River and the plains is a single geographical unit. It is wedge shaped and comprises the Mt Hutt and Pudding Hill Ranges, Black Hill Range, Mt Somers and Old Man Ranges, Taylor Range and Palmer Range.
Our Patron is Allan Evans of Temuka. For many years he worked as the engineer and planner for the then South Canterbury Catchment Board. In 1963 he wrote a detailed report for his Board, recording the excessive erosion in the upper Ashburton catchments. He recommended destocking the high country with remedial works in streams. This was part of the growing awareness of the need to conserve water and soil in the high country. About 25 years ago FMC began to question the right of runholders to hold vast tracts of public land, with trespass rights, where grazing had limited production value but caused much damage. Allan Evan provided a summary of his 1963 paper to the Department of Conservation when the south bank Rakaia group of runs were listed for "early warning" in 1997, This is our appendix A.
Consequently for 20 to 30 years, FMC and its member clubs have advocated return of the high land in this unit to the Public Conservation Estate so that its natural and landscape values may be protected and so that it is freely available for public recreational use. Actual change began some years ago when the high altitude Double Hill and Glenariffe Pastoral Occupation Licences (POLs) expired. This land is currently Crown Land administered by the Commissioner of Crown Land (CCL) but should become Conservation land as tenure review proceeds.
Apart from Double Hill, other properties flanking this area are under-going tenure review. These are Glenariffe, Glenrock and Redcliffe. These are all in the Rakaia catchment and should eventually provide a continuous band of public land above the south bank of the Rakaia River.
Double Hill - Land to be returned to Full Crown Ownership
We support the proposal to transfer land as outlined in the draft proposal to the conservation estate. When added to the land in the expired Double Hill POL this will make a coherent block of mid and high altitude land which will provide a significant step towards the aims stated above. The proposed boundary with freehold land appears logical in that it follows the existing fence line.
The Department of Conservation's Report & Recommendations
FMC agrees with and supports part of DOC's Conservation Resources Report. The sections on Landscape, Landforms and Geology, Vegetation and Fauna are detailed and accurate.
HOWEVER, we consider the section on Recreation is inadequate because of insufficient knowledge of recreational use in the area. This states:
"There is currently little recreational use of Double Hill. The area beyond Turton's Saddle and in the North Branch of the Ashburton River has some use for tramping parties gaining access to the lower reaches of the Ashburton River. The terrain on the tops of the expired POL is not technically interesting for climbers but has basins easily accessible from Mt Hutt and Glenfalloch for heli-skiing"
In fact several tramping clubs in Canterbury have a tradition of high altitude tramping on most of the higher ranges to the east of the main divide. This involves physically (but not technically) demanding climbs to main summits. These are often done in winter or spring when the snow cover makes the country more interesting. Popular destinations In the Rakaia area are Godley Peak (which is accessed from Double Hill), Black Hill and Steepface Hill (on Glenrock). Similarly, Mt Taylor is the highest point in Canterbury east of the Southern Alps. Consequently it provides a special challenge but unlike the Rakaia summits named above it is approached from the South Ashburton River near Lake Heron.
FMC made a brief submission dated 10 July 1998 (appendix B). This was sent after the original DOC report was written on 27 May 1997 but was in time for their later recommendations written on 3rd August 1999. It stated there was regular use of the high county above Double Hill but this was ignored in the later DOC paper.
Our compiler is supplying a list (appendix C) of tramps undertaken by his own club in the wider area covered in our introduction. This gives a better picture of overall use of the area. Trips on or across Double Hill itself are highlighted in block letters. Note that this is only a fraction of use of the area and should be taken as only an example. There are several other clubs in Canterbury who run comparable programmes as well as trips by private groups and total use will be much higher than listed.
We have gone to some length to point out the level of use because it relates to the need for access routes across freehold to high land on both Double Hill and other pending reviews. Proposed access on Double Hill is clearly inadequate and we will comment in detail below.
Comments on details of the Draft Proposal:
1. Access to High Conservation Land through proposed Freehold Land.
Only one route is provided. This is from Ensor's Road to Homestead Hill - deliniated as f-g-h in the proposal.
This is inadequate because:
The mountains above the south bank of the Rakaia Valley comprise three distinct "blocks" of high land with intervening saddles. These blocks are:
Consequently each block will require at least two and possibly three or more access routes as tenure review proceeds. This is because trampers prefer to climb by one route then traverse part of the tops and return by another. Also a minimum of two routes are needed for safety in case of bad weather.
Access from Double Hill
We agree in principle with the route f-g-h to Homestead Hill. However it is not clear that this provides a clear and open route to the tops above Homestead Hill. Point h.
Is well below Homestead Hill and if the route crosses the fence here into the conservation land it may provide more difficult travel than on the west of the fence.
We request that this detail be checked on the ground.
For the reasons given above, a second access route is needed. This should follow the management easement from Ensor's Road to the foot of the large bush gully at grid reference 718644 then up the spur east of the gully to reach the boundary fence at GR724627. This is similar to DOC's original proposed access. It is normal to descend from Godley Pk via the ridge over pt 1422 to this point.
If climbing Godley Pk in summer, it would be usual to ascend via Homestead Hill and return this way. If climbing in winter it would be normal to both ascend and return via this second route because the shorter daylight hours make the round trip impossible.
The proposed access to Turton's Saddle (on Glenariffe) will be valuable. However in terms of tramping geography it is more useful for access to Black Hill and is too far east for reasonable access/exit to the Godley Peak area.
We also note that there is no proposed public access to any of the bush gullies along the Double Hill faces. This is unreasonable as these are interesting gullies in their own right in an area where bush is notably scarce. We request that access be provided to the bottom of the bush gully immediately east of Homestead Hill by providing a short access route as a spur from the main route.
Access from the South Ashburton Valley
DOC's recommendations of 3.8.99 state an intention to
"Ensure there is practical foot access to the upper Smite River along the river bed (this may be either on Crown Land or Upper Lake Heron pastoral lease) and look at future access to the Swin River (on Clent Hills Station)"
We consider that access via the Swin River is just as important as access via the Smite River and should be ensured rather than only considered. Note that this access is necessary for reaching the large area of land in the south and south west of the present lease and POL. It will also allow cross country travel to Round Hill Creek and other streams draining into the North Ashburton River.
However, and more to the point, while the DOC report comments on access from this side of the range, the Draft Proposal itself makes no provision for such access.
We consider that if additional access to the Godley Peak tops (described above) and access via both the Smite and Swin Rivers is not provided, the draft proposal will not meet the requirements of the Crown Land Pastoral Act, S. 24 (c ) (1). This is because the access proposed at present is not sufficient to provide safe and reasonable access to all parts of the public land under review.
3. Other Access
We agree with all the other proposals for providing formal access including ensuring that the formed road beyond Double Hill actually provides legal access to Glenfalloch and the Rakaia River opposite Manuka Point. It is not clear that the access to Manuka Point at " l " actually crosses the boundary of the property to the river bed but we assume this is an inaccuracy in the map.
However, we note that both the Due Diligence Report and the
DOC recommendations state that
marginal strips should be laid off on the freehold land.
The draft proposal gives no indication of where these will be. We conisder that as a minimum strips are needed on the bank of the Rakaia River where it forms the freehold boundary and also along Double Hill and Glenariffe Streams where they run through the freehold land on the flats.
4. Landscape Covenants
The original recommendations by the Department of Conservation (27.5.97) proposed extensive landscape covenants on much of the flat land and Double Hill (the hill itself). These have disappeared from DOC's later (post C.P.L.A.) recommendations of 3.8.99 but the later proposals include smaller areas of land which will become conservation land within the main freehold.
We consider that there should be a landscape covenant over all the actual elevated land on the double hills of Double Hill. This is because it is a prominent landscape feature which would be degraded by changes such as pasture development or afforestation.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to a successful conclusion to this review.
DAVID HENSON
FMC Tenure Review Facilitator, North Canterbury.
13.7.02