This page created 6 June 2003 / last modified 8 July 2002
Pc 129
Rakaia Valley
Canterbury Land District
Tenure review yet to be approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands
CROWN PASTORAL
LAND ACT 1998
GLENARIFFE TENURE REVIEW
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
NOTICE IS GIVEN under Section 43 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that he has put a preliminary proposal for tenure review to Glenariffe Station Limited as lessees of Glenariffe Pastoral Lease:
Legal description of land concerned:
Pastoral lease land:
Run 337 Glenrock Survey District and Somers Survey District, being
all the land contained in Instrument of Title CB11B/921 (Canterbury
Registry) comprising 4799.5717 hectares.
General description of proposal:
(1) 33 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be restored
to Crown control as conservation area, subject to a qualified
designation under Section 35(2)(b)(i) and Section 36(1)(a) Crown
Pastoral Land Act 1998.
Qualified Designation:
An easement concession for farm management and water supply purposes
over routes through part of the conservation area.
(2) 3173 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be restored to full Crown ownership and control, as a conservation area under Section 35(2)(a)(i) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998.
(3) 1593 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to the holder under Section 35(3) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998, subject to Part IV A Conservation Act 1987, Section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the following protective mechanism under Section 40(1)(b), Section 40(2)(b) and 40(2)(c) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998.
Protective Mechanism:
A ROW easement for unrestricted public foot access and access
by non- motorised vehicle and to provide conservation management
access alongside Glenrock Stream to the proposed conservation
area.
Further information including a copy of the Plan, easement concession and easement documents is available on request from the Commissioner's contractor at the following address:
Tenure Review Team Leader
Quotable Value New Zealand Ltd
P O Box 13 443
CHRISTCHURCH
Ph: (03) 341-1634
Fax: (03) 341-1635
Submissions:
Any person or organisation may send a written submission on the
above proposal to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, C/- Quotable
Value New Zealand Ltd at the above address.
All submissions are being collected and held by LINZ either directly or through its contractor.
Submitters should note that all written submissions may be made available, in full, by LINZ to its employees and contractors, the Department of Conservation and the public generally.
Closing date of submissions:
Written
submissions must be received no later than 9 July 2003.
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
FOR TENURE REVIEW OF
GLENARIFFE PASTORAL LEASE
UNDER THE CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
MAY 2003
INDEX
1. Details of reviewable instrument
2. Proposal
3. Descriptions of proposed
designations
4. Discussion of Proposed Designations in Relation to Objects
of Part 2 CPL Act
Appendix 1: Copy of Published Notice (10 May 2003) [above]
Appendix 2: Plan(s) [below]
Appendix 3: Farm Management Easement Concession [not included
on this site]
Appendix 4: Public Access and
Minister of Conservatior Management Purposes Easement [pdf
132k]
1. Details of reviewable
instrument
Lease Name: Glenariffe
Location: Double Hill Run Road, Methven
Lessee: Glenariffe Station Limited
Pastoral Lease: Pc 129
Land Registry Folio Ref: CB11B/921 (Canterbury Registry)
Legal Description: Run 337 Blocks
II, V, VI, VIII, IX & X Glenrock Survey District and Blocks
II, III, VI, VII & XI Somers Survey District.
Area: 4799.5717 hectares
Term of the Lease: 33 years from I July 1970 to 30 June 2003
2. Proposal
2.1 To be designated
as land to be restored to or retained in full Crown ownership
and control, as conservation area (under section 35(2)(a)(i) Crown
Pastoral Land Act 1998):
Area: 3173 ha approximately to the nearest hectare (outlined
in pink and labelled CAI and CA2 on the plan appended)
2.2 To be designated as land to be restored to or retained
in Crown control, as conservation area sub ject to a qualified
designation (under section 35(2)(b)(i) and Section 36(1)(a) Crown
Pastoral Land Act 1998):
Area: 33 ha approximately to the nearest hectare (outlined
in pink and labelled CA3 on the plan appended)
2.3 To be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold
disposal to person specified subject to a protective mechanism
(under Section 35(3) and Section 40(1)(b) Crown Pastoral Land
Act 1998):
Person Specified: Glenariffe Station Limited
Area: 1593 ha approximately to the nearest hectare (outlined in
green on the plan appended)
3. Description of proposed designations
3.1 Land to be restored to full Crown ownership and control:
Total Area = 3173 ha (approximately)
This land is mostly in one continuous block and takes in the upper
parts of the Rakaia Faces, Donald Hill and all of the North Branch
of the Ashburton River catchment within the pastoral lease. Altitude
ranges from approximately 720 metres ASL at the lower reaches
of the Ashburton River to 870 metres at Turtons Stream, 1142 metres
at Turtons Saddle and 1525 metres on Donald Hill.
This area is mostly in Class VII with small areas in Class VIII.
The mountain area includes parts of two RAPs - Mount Hutt RAP
22 Turtons Saddle and Mathias 3, and Glenrock Swamp. The area
includes large areas of tall tussock with a limited number of
introduced plant species.
Glenrock Swamp is one of three wetlands on the south bank of the
Rakaia River. Flood plain wetlands in natural condition are now
uncommon in the ecological district because of drainage, grazing
and pugging by cattle. This small area is in good condition.
The overall area displays an unmodified and appealing natural
environment from streambed to high bare mountaintops. The area
has relative ease of access for back country recreation activities
including tramping into the front ranges of the southern alps
and upland water sports fishing in the North Ashburton River.
3.2 Land to be restored to Crown control:
Total Area = 33 ha (approximately)
This land takes in the lower part of Powerhouse Stream and a narrow
strip of the Rakaia Faces above the ravine of Powerhouse Stream.
It includes part of RAP 12 Power House Stream comprising steep
sided rocky land as well as open tussock land to the west of the
upper part of the ravine.
It is subject to an easement concession for fanm management purposes
shown marked "c-d" on the plan and secondly for access
for the maintenance and repair of the water supply intake and
piping in Powerhouse Stream shown marked "g-h" on the
appended plan.
3.2.1 Farm management easement concession: An easement
concession exists to allow the adjoining landholder stock access
over thc route marked "c-d" on the appended plan. This
concession allows access by motor vehicle, with or without horsos,
machinery and implements of any lcind and with or without fanm
dogs and fann stock access from one area of freehold through a
stretch of Conservation land below Donald [dill to another area
of freehold. This easement route is the only practical route across
the face at this altitude. This access route has been in place
for many years. It is anticipated that farm use will be minimal
and stock will only be using this easement when they are driven
across the face and in the presence of owners or farm staff rather
than being allowed to wander through.
There is also an easement concession marked "g-h" on
the plan appended to allow the adjoining landholder access with
vehicles or machinery to provide for repairs and maintenance of
a water intake. This easement is about 50 metres long.
3.3 To be designated as Crown land to be disposed of by freehold
disposal to Glenariffe Station Limited
Total Area = 1593 ha (approximately)
The land includes the balance of the Rakaia faces, easier contour
l'and and all river flats to the north boundary. The land has
been farmed over a long period and is considered to be capable
of ecologically sustainable use. The land has variable contour,
vegetative cover and a good level of potential farm production.
Approximately 90% of the land would fit into Class VII with the
balance being in the lower Class VI. The land generally sits below
1200 metres altitude with the flats at 440 metres above sea level.
There is a homestead, woolshed and other farm buildings.
Vegetative cover comprises two small areas of red tussock on the
Rakaia River flats but these are dominated by exotic grasses and
herbs. The river flats are largely open and treeless with a mainly
exotic grassland cover along with a number of small but deep clear
streams and wetlands.
The mid to lower slopes of the Rakaia faces of steepish contour
have a grassland cover of improved tussock land, scattered matagouri
and some snow tussock. These mid to lower slops have been subdivided
into smaller grazing blocks and over-sown and top-dressed. They
are warm facing and are a productive part of the Glenariffe property.
Overall the land is in good condition.
3.3.1 Public Access Easement along Glenrock Stream This
easement is marked "a-b" on the plan appended. This
easement allows for public access for persons on foot or by non-motorised
vehicle across land on an existing 4 WD track. It also allows
access for Minister of Conservation employees on foot, by horses
or by motor vehicle with or without machinery and implements of
any kind for management purposes over the same route. The casement
is the principle means of access to Turtons Saddle and land in
the upper catchment of the North Branch of the Ashburton River
and its tributaries.
4. Discussion of Proposed
Designations in Relation to Objects of Part 2 CPL Act
The objects of Part
2 of the CPL Act are set out in Section 24 Crown Pastoral Land
Act 1998:
24. Objects of Part 2 - The objects of this part are:
(a) To:
(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way that is
ecologically sustainable:
(ii) Subject to subparagraph (i), enable reviewable land capable of
economic use to to be freed the management constraints
(direct and indirect) resulting fromits tenure under reviewable
instrument; and
(b) To enable the protection of significant inherent values of reviewable
land -
(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably)
(ii) By the restoration of land to full Crown ownership and control; and
(c) Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), to make easier
(i) The securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable
land; and
(ii) The freehold disposal of reviewable land.
This proposal promotes management
of the reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable
by allocating to conservation areas which contain both mid to
high altitude tussock land, a small area of lowland wetland on
the north east side adjacent to Double Hill Run Road and small
areas of mixed hardwood forest remnants. These areas are in good
natural condition and this form of protection will enhance the
already present sign)ficant inherent values.
The retention of the bulk of the higher mountain lands including
Turtons Basin and the mountain slopes and areas along Turtons
Stream and North Branch of the Ashburton River allows for retention
of characteristics of sign)ficant vegetative and landscape values.
The retention of the small area of wetlands adj acent to the Rakaia
River provides protection of the vegetation and landscape values
for a remnant for what was once a more extensive landform.
This property has an attractive setting that would encourage a
reasonable level of public use of the high mountain lands and
the river valley that would allow
access from the Rakaia River area and thence over land to Turtons
Stream and further afield along the North Ashburton River. The
provision of access will allow public enjoyment of the outstanding
mountain setting from Turtons Basin south to the North Ashburton
River for those interested in travelling to or along the river
course., and for a short journey to Turtons Saddle to enjoy the
expansive view north over the Rakaia River and environs.
The Rakaia River along with the Glenariffe and Double Hill Streams
are name recreational sports fisheries. Public access has been
recommended over Turtons Saddle but access to the Rakaia River
from Double Hill Road will be within road reserves running through
land on the north side of Double Hill Run Road and then over public
land beyond the boundary of land designated for disposal to Glenariffe
Station Limited. The route over Turtons Saddle secures public
access to and enjoyment of reviewable land and joins a road reserve
running besides Glenrock Stream to link the easement with Double
Hill Run Road..
The disposal by freehold disposal of approximately 1593 hectares
will allow reviewable land capable of ecologically sustainable
use to be freed from the management constraints resulting from
being a pastoral lease. This land is a mixture of variable light/
heavy flats in improved and native tussock grassland ,cultivated
terraces in improved pasture, oversown lower hill and mid hill
slopes varying altitude in a good vegetative cover and some undeveloped
hill areas. The land was class)fied by the South Canterbury Catchment
Board as approximately 90% in Class VII and a small proportion
in Class VI.
The land is in good farming condition and the ongoing application
of fertiliser and oversowing will allow the land to be used for
fme wool sheep and cattle in an ecologically sustainable manner
. The disposal of these lands is subject to the creation of a
access easement to the adjacent conservation land and thus meet
the objects of Section 24(c)(i) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998.
APPENDICES
1. Notice of Preliminary
Proposal as advertised in "The Press" and "Otago
Daily Times" on 10 May and 14 May 2003 [at commencement of
this web page]
2. Plan(s) [below]
3. Farm management easement concession [not included on this site]
4. Public Access and Minister
of Conservation Management Purposes Easement [pdf 132k]
Related Tenure Review Documents (available from LINZ website)
Scoping report (pdf 283KB)
Due Diligence Report (pdf 1.01MB)
Conservation resources report (pdf 447KB)
Proposed Designations report (pdf 167KB)
Plans attaching to the Proposed Designations report (pdf 1.86MB)Fish and Game report (pdf 2.00MB)
8 July 2003
Commissioner of Crown Lands
C/- Quotable Value New Zealand Ltd
P O Box 13 443
CHRISTCHURCH
Fax: (03) 341-1635
Submission on Glenariffe Tenure Review Preliminary Proposal
Public Access New Zealand wishes to comment on the following aspects of the Preliminary Proposal.
Due to the failure to secure public access to and enjoyment of this reviewable land, and the failure to ensure marginal strips are created, Public Access New Zealand opposes implementation of this tenure review.
Failure to secure public access
The proposed access to the proposed main conservation area depends on utilisation of a "road reserve running beside Glenrock Stream". However there is no assurance that this provides practical access as the alignment is uncertain. A shelterbelt immediately upstream of Double Hill Road may obstruct access. This matter should be dealt with as an integral part of tenure review, as DOC earlier recommended by including adjoining freehold as "other land" for the purposes of tenure review.Without certain, practical public access to the boundary of the proposed conservation area, the proposal completely fails the objects of Part 2 of the CPLA including a duty under section 24(c)(i), to "secure public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land".
We note that the proposed easement along Glenrock Stream provides the public only with rights of foot and non-powered vehicles (i.e. cycle) access. Access for DOC extends to horses. We see no necessity for exclusion of horse access for members of the public. We submit that this form of access be provided.
We are concerned that the proposed easement partly utilises the alignment of a legal road. In law public roads are incapable of having easements registered over them. An intention to do so, if implemented, would amount to an unlawful stopping of the road and must not proceed. Any easement must be confined to those parts of the alignment that are not legal road.
'Securing' access as required by section 24(c)(i) CPLA entails more than a passive duty or one that permits inadequate access provision. There is an active duty to secure access. Whilst no definition of 'securing' is contained in section 2 CPLA it is normal judicial practice, in the absence of applicable statutory definition, to look at ordinary dictionary interpretations for meaning. The Concise Oxford, Seventh Edition, defines 'secure' as "safe against attack, impregnable, reliable, certain not to fail or give way, having sure prospect...from interruption".
We submit that in most respects, the proposed 'protective mechanism' along Glenrock Stream in the form of an easement pursuant to section 80 CPLA and section 7(2) Conservation Act fails to be "safe against attack, impregnable, reliable, certain not to fail or give way, having sure prospect...from interruption". We refer to the express terms of the draft easement document
Clause 4. Exclusion of schedules.
Whilst the Ninth Schedule of the Property Law Act 1952 is expressly excluded from the terms of the easement, section 126G of that Act is not. Section 126G allows modification or extinguishment of easements through the courts, at the initiative of either party to their creation or one alone. There is no ability for public notification or objection. This omission constitutes a fundamental failure to "secure" public rights of passage, as required by the CPLA.Clause 6. Temporary suspension.
"The Transferee may, at any time in exercise of her/his powers, temporarily close all or part of the Easement Area for such period as she/he considers necessary".'Easement areas' are not conservation areas or reserves, but freehold. It appears to us that the Crown, and DOC on particular, have no statutory powers of closure over freehold. The absence of any legal authorities for closure is of great concern. If there are lawful powers of closure applicable they must be cited. Without such there can be no accountability for DOC's future actions, and therefore no certainty of secure public access.
If genuine reasons for closure of conservation areas to public recreation exist, these should be directly exercised over the lands concerned, and not on access ways leading to such. Police and rural fire authorities have more than sufficient power of closure now without DOC attempting to extend its jurisdiction beyond land it administers.
Clauses 7.1 - 7.4. Dispute resolution.
Despite the 'Transferee' being defined to include "any member of the public" (clause 1.5), there is no provision for public involvement in resolving any disputes between the Transferee (meaning DOC) and the freehold landowner. This means that "any member of the public" is totally dependent on DOC to uphold the public interest. There has to be provision for DOC to be publicly accountable for its handling of disputes if there is to be any confidence that access will not become insecure as a result of secret negotiations. We submit that, if an easement mechanism is used for public access provision, clauses 7.1 to 7.4 be amended to require public notification and submission on disputes when not resolved within 5 working days of DOC being notified by any member of the public of obstructed access.A factor not widely known is that under the Crimes Act (section 58) the public is liable to eviction notwithstanding rights under any easement. The reality is that these are private lands notwithstanding any public privileges granted. The Crimes Act negates any security of use for the public via an easement.
The scheme of the CPLA is that protective mechanisms, including easements, are only applicable over natural resources. This 'easement area' is not a natural resource.
Section 24(b) CPLA enables protective mechanisms, such as access easements, only over lands with significant inherent values
24(b) To enable the protection of the significant inherent values of
reviewable land---
(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably)
(ii) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and controlInherent values are confined to natural resources or historic places
"Inherent value", in relation to any land, means a value arising from---
a. A cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute or characteristic of a natural resource in, on, forming part of, or existing by virtue of the conformation of, the land; or
b. A cultural, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute or characteristic of a historic place on or forming part of the land:
(Section 2 CPLA)"Natural resources" means---
(a) Plants and animals of all kinds; and
(b) The air, water, and soil in or on which any plant or animal lives or may live; and
(c) Landscape and landform; and
(d) Geological features; and
(e) Ecosystems;---
and "natural resource" has a corresponding meaning:
(Section 2 CPLA)Therefore 'natural resource' cannot be extended to mean recreational attributes or desires such as public access, in the absence of natural resources. The land either side and on the proposed easement area is proposed for freeholding, because there are insufficient inherent values to either warrant Crown retention or some form of protective mechanism. The proposed easement area has even less natural characteristics than the surrounding land, as it has been modified by the formation of a vehicle track. As well there is no suggestion in accompanying official documents for this proposal that any historic values exist within the proposed easement area. It therefore cannot qualify as a 'natural resource' or 'historic place' "of significant inherent value" meaning "inherent value of such importance, nature, quality, or rarity that the land deserves the protection of management under the Reserves Act 1977 or the Conservation Act 1987" (Section 2 CPLA).
Besides, the land itself is not obtaining "the protection of management" under the Conservation Act, as it to become freehold and capable of modification by the owner so long as access is maintained over it. Therefore there is no protection of the land per se from the existence of an easement despite this being the dominant tenement over the land.
We therefore submit that the granting of this 'protective mechanism' for the purpose of public access is ultra vires the powers contained in the CPLA, and must not be implemented.
Retention of Crown ownership and designation as a 'public highway' required.
The only form of secure public access in New Zealand is public road. At common law, every member of the public has a right to assert unhindered passage at all times. Such rights are vested in the public and not the roading authority. Over many centuries, such rights have proven to be very robust, notwithstanding inadequate and at times unlawful administration by roading authorities. The existence of direct public remedies against anyone whom obstructs passage is the key ingredient for securing access. The remedies available are removal of obstructions, suing the obstructing party, or both. No such remedies exist for obstructed public easements. Experience from earlier tenure reviews has demonstrated that no reliance can be placed on DOC to uphold the public interest when access easements are obstructed.There are statutory abilities to temporally close or to permanently stop roads, however the grounds for such are very constrained. There are public processes and a large body of case law to ensure that the exercise of such powers is not unwarranted or unreasonable. The same cannot be said of the terms of the proposed easement.
While it appears that DOC does not want the public having unfettered access to the boundaries of land it administers, much like some private landowners, it is not DOC's wishes that must prevail in this case. It is the objects of the CPLA that must be observed. In regard to provision of public access the objects are clear "secure access to and enjoyment of reviewable land". The 'reviewable land' is not DOC's in the first place. DOC needs to accept any 'encumbrances' on its future discretion to act, just like any private owner whom accepts freehold title subject to the constraints of protective mechanisms.
PANZ submits that secure public access must be provided to the proposed conservation area from Double Hill Road and along alignment a-b through designation of a strip of land pursuant to section 35(2)(a)(iii) for the specified Crown purpose of "public highway", where this is not already a public road. The Commissioner of Crown Lands should dedicate this road as a public highway for foot, cycle and horse passage, with animus dedicandi being fulfilled by public acceptance and use.
The mechanism in the CPLA to enable what we propose is section 35(2)(a)(iii). Designation of land held under reviewable instrument, freehold land, and unused Crown land---
(2) A preliminary proposal may designate all or any part of any land to which this section applies as---
(a) Land to be restored to or retained in full Crown ownership and control---
(i) As conservation area; or
(ii) As a reserve, to be held for a purpose specified in the proposal; or
(iii) For some specified Crown purpose.The specified Crown purpose should be "public bridle path". Under the Law of Highways (the total body of common and statutory law), horse passage would also grant foot and cycle use. Use would not extend to motor vehicles.
If and when a substantive proposal is put to the holder, authority for this designation would continue via section 46(1)-
46. Substantive proposals may be put to holders--- (1) If a preliminary proposal has been put to the holder of 1 or more reviewable instruments and notified under section 43, the Commissioner may in writing put to the holder a substantive proposal that is the same as or a modified version of the preliminary proposal.In conclusion, while there are several options open in regard to the administration of any Crown purpose road, the CPLA provides the ability to retain in full Crown ownership and control assets which further the objects of the Act. Those assets can include roads. In this case we submit that there is an obligation for the Crown to retain ownership of strips of land of sufficient width to permit practical access, as public road/bridle path additional to roads already in existence. This is the only proven means of fulfilling the CPLA's object of "securing public access and enjoyment of reviewable land".
References:
Mason Bruce. 1991. Public Roads: A Guide to Rights of Access to the Countryside. Public Lands Coalition.
Mason Bruce. 1994/2002. Public Roads. A Users' Guide. Public Access New Zealand. Mason Bruce. 2002.
Proof of dedication as public road: A brief guide. Public Access New Zealand.
[Available from www.publicaccessnewzealand.org]
Adequacy of proposed conservation areas
PANZ has not inspected the boundaries of the proposed conservation area CA1 and is unable to comment on the appropriateness of these.However the CMS recommended that the full length of the ravine in Powerhouse Stream be retained in Crown ownership but this is not provided for by the Preliminary Proposal. We also note that the CMS recorded NGO wishes that foot access be available to Donald Hill from Double Hill Road. This is not provided by the Preliminary Proposal, leaving a gap of several hundred metres between the road and the proposed conservation area CA3 lower boundary.
The only alternative access to Donald Hill will be along Glenrock Stream, which will require over 3.5km of travel to reach the conservation area boundary before climbing the hill. For those wishing to climb Donald Hill this is an unnecessary diversion. Additional access should be provided along Powerhouse Stream. This would allow direct access to Donald Hill and round trips via Glenrock Stream. This would provide a valuable opportunity for day walks.
We submit that the boundaries of CA3 are extended to Double Hill Road, to provide practical foot access from the road along either shoulders of the stream and above the Powerhouse Stream ravine on both banks to provide practical access. We do not favour the creation of an easement as such would be an insecure mechanism not in accordance with "securing public access and enjoyment of the revisable land", as required by section 24(c)(i) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act.
Double Hill Road alignment
We note from official documents supplied to us that parts of Double Hill are not on the 'legal' alignment. Also it is recorded that the Salmon hatchery "straddles" the legal road. This is unsatisfactory. We believe that the CCL has an obligation to instigate actions with the district council to ensure that the formed and currently utilised road become legal road if not already.
Marginal strips not laid off
We are most disappointed that in the past the Crown has failed to lay off marginal strips from this property, and fails to state where such strips will be created either on expiry of the lease on 1 July 2003 or as a result of disposition of land from tenure review. Fish and Game identified both Double Hill and Glenariffe Streams as nationally important salmon fisheries, with a pressing need to exclude cattle and provide secure public access. No weight has been given to these concerns by the Preliminary Proposal.Failure to identify where marginal strips will be created, if at all as a consequence of tenure review, is an abject failure to either enable the protection of significant inherent values or provide secure public access, both of which are required by the objects of the CPLA. It is a disgrace that DOC did not take up this issue because it erroneously argued that provision of marginal strips is a Fish and Game responsibility rather than DOC's, "because of the department's emphasis on natural ecosystems" (DOC Designations Report). Such an argument defies the department's legal responsibilities under the Conservation Act. It raises the possibility that, if left to their own devices, DOC will not ensure the provision of marginal strips on freeholding of the property.
The extent of qualifying streams for marginal strips should be identified in the Preliminary Proposal so that deficiencies can be identified and alternative provisions for protection and access can be considered.
In conclusion we submit that the Preliminary Proposal not proceed in its present form. We request consultation on any revised proposals, prior to any Substantive Proposal being put to the holder. Section 26 CPLA provides discretion for the CCL to consult any person or body at any time
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Researcher & Co-Spokesman