This page last modified 14 October 2002
Po 201
Southern Hector Mountains
Otago Land District
CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
GLEN NEVIS TENURE REVIEW
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
Notice is given under Section 43 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that he has put a preliminary proposal for tenure review to L J & F J Taylor, lessees of Glen NEVIS Pastoral Lease.
Legal description of land concerned:
Pastoral lease land:
Part Run 354B, Lorne, Kingston and South Wakatipu Survey Districts and Section 8 Kingston Survey District contained in Land Registry Folio Reference 386/103 (Otago Registry). 6673.6138 hectares.
General description of propose:
(1) Under Section 35 (2) (a) (i) CPL Act, to designate 4474 ha approximately as land to be
restored to full Crown ownership and control as a conservation area.
(2) Under Section 35 (3) CPL Act, to designate approximately 2200 ha as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to L J & F J Taylor subject to the protective mechanism detailed below:
Protective mechanism under Section 40 (1) (b) CPL Act;
(A) A conservation covenant under Section 27, Conservation Act 1987 to preserve and protect natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations.
Further information including a copy of a plan and the covenant document is available on request from the Commissioner's agent at the following address
The Manager
Knight Frank (NZ) Limited
Land Resources Division
P O Box 27
ALEXANDRA
Phone: (03) 448-6935
Fax: (03) 448-9099
Submissions:
Any person or organisation may send a written submission on the above proposal to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, C/- Knight Frank (NZ) Limited at the above address.
Closing date of submissions:
13 June 2001
In conjunction with the Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society we have made an extensive Official Information request to obtain material not revealed by the 'Preliminary Proposal'. LINZ, on behalf of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, failed to provide this within the statutory period of 20 working days. When reminded of this they immediately claimed another 10 days for 'consultations' before responding to our request. Going by the CCL's abysmal record of secrecy and failure to answer correspondence, PANZ does not hold much hope of receiving the information in time to assist the preparation of our submission. However this matter was brought to the attention of the Minister of Land Information when we meet him on the 14 th June!
The official information only arrived 2 days before closing date for submissions at a cost of $587.25. We left the bill with the Minister and expressed hope that there will not be similar charges for every other tenure review. LINZ has now agreeed to meet with the High Country Coalition (includes PANZ) to resolve a long list of difficulties with the Department.
See: Protective covenants - are they worth the paper they are written on?
Looking north from 6000 feet asl. The near hill (right of centre) is Lorn Peak. The southern boundary of Glen Nevis runs directly upslope from near the lake shore to the summit. The northern boundary crosses the Hector Mountains where the range crest rises abruptly (right of centre).
The "snowline fence" is well named, as it is at snowline. Lake Wakatipu on left. The Remarkables are centre rear.
If you would like an A4 print-quality JPG file of this photo please email PANZ.
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR TENURE
REVIEW
OF GLEN NEVIS PASTORAL LEASE
UNDER THE CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
INDEX:
( 1 ) Details of land under consideration
(2) Proposal
(3) Description of proposed designations
Appendix 1 Plan
Appendix 2: Conservation covenant
(1) Details of land under consideration:
1.1 Lease Name: Glen Nevis
Lessee: Lachlan James Taylor and Fiona Jillian Taylor
Location: Kingston
Land Registry Folio Ref: 386/103 (Otago Registry)
Legal Description: Part Run 354B Lorne, Kingston and
South
Wakatipu Survey Districts and Section 38
Kingston Survey District.
Area: 6673.6138 hectares
Local Authorities: Queenstown Lakes District Council
and Central
Otago District Council.
Term of Lease: 33 years from 1 July 1992, expiring I July 2025.
{2) Proposal:
2.1 To be designated as land to be restored to or retained in full Crown ownership and control:
(a) as conservation area under Section 35 (2) (a) (i) CPL Act.
Area: 6 ha approximately (marked as a green strip on the plan attached as Appendix I).
(b) as conservation area under Section 35 (2) (a) (i) CPL Act.
Area: 4468 ha approximately (marked edged green on the plan attached as Appendix 1).
2.2 To be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to L J & F J Taylor under Section 35 (3) CPL Act subject to a protective mechanism detailed below:
Area: 2200 ha approximately (marked edged blue and blue and red on the plan attached as Appendix 1).
Protective mechanism under Section 40 (1) (b) CPL Act;
(A) A conservation covenant under Section 27 Conservation Act 1987 (shown hatched green on the plan attached as Appendix 1).
(3) Descriptions of Proposed Designations:
3.1 Land to be designated as conservation area:
Total area: 4474 ha approximately.
3.1.1 Riparian margin adjoining Unnamed Creek on Lake Wakatipu Faces:
This area is a 20 metre wide strip on either side of an unnamed creek containing native fish which flows into Lake Wakatipu. The aquatic values contained within this area include Koaro which is a threatened species. These fish are associated with Lake Wakatipu and its tributaries. Given the threatened category of the species protection is proposed. This should prevent any further disturbance of the riparian margin even though the area will not be fenced due to its deeply incised nature.
3.1.2 The Nevis Flat and the eastern faces of the Hector Mountains:
3.1. 2.1 Vegetation:
Many small cirque basins line the upper portions of this side of the range with steep head walls and outcropping rock. Herbfield, fellfield and snow bank communities predominate with extensive cushion fields along the tops of the long ridges running towards the Nevis Valley. A large and botanically important semi-circular bog is found at the head of the tributary of Drummond Creek between 1612 - 1678 metres. Above this is an interesting snowbank. Large areas of the orange rush Marsippospermum gracile and Celmisia viscosa adjoin the snowbank. Small boulderfields and patches of snow tussock complete the mosaic. From 1400 - 1150 metres are large areas of Dracophyllum pronum. It is often covered with creamy coloured lichen (Usnea sp.) which appears quite striking from a distance. The Dracophyllum tends to form an almost pure community with few other species present. Between 1150 - 900 metres are a number of small communities of Hebe shrubland. Hebe anomala forms up to 50% of the cover with Dracophyllum pronum up to 30%. Hebe propinqua forms about 15% of cover with D. uniflorum, and Aciphylla aurea also present. The Nevis Valley including the lower fans contain a diverse vegetation community dominated by hard tussock. Five threatened plant species have been identified in this locality including the rare Ranunculus ternatifolius which is listed as a vulnerable species and Uncinia purpurata which is listed as status unknown.
A number of small native herbs still exist among this vegetation including the threatened Tetrachondra hamiltonli and in addition at least seven other species have been identified which are uncommon in Otago or in particular this ecological district. Red tussock is found in the poorly drained area.
3. 1. 2.2 Fauna:
The Nevis flats lie on the margins of two distinct ecological districts. This combined with a diversity and high quality of plant communities supports a wide collection of mostly insect fauna.
Four significant species were identified, an endangered black carabid beetle, a new undescribed chafer beetle and two types of moths.
3.1. 2. 3 Fish and Game:
Brown trout inhabit the Nevis River, in addition brook char are found in all the Nevis tributaries. An unidentified type of galaxiid native fish was found in the upper reaches of the Drummond and Wrights Creeks. This is now confirmed as a new lineage. Drummond Creek is a trout spawning ground.
The Nevis fishery is well regarded as easily accessible.
The small dredging ponds are nesting sites for several duck species.
3.1. 2. 4 Historic:
Gold mining has been carried out in the upper Nevis since the 1860's. There are a number of historic sites on the lease that clearly show a range of mining techniques including brown sluicing, elevating and hydraulic sluicing. There are several major water races and ponds all of which are intact. Of all the historic sites in the Nevis Valley, 80% of them are on Glen Nevis. Several factors make the historic sites on the property unique:
(i) There is a wide range of historic gold mining features on the property.
(ii) The landscape setting is largely unmodified from the early mining days.
(iii) The sites are relatively undisturbed and intact.
(iv) The sites are very visible and public access to them is easy being not far from the Garston-Nevis road.
3.2 Land to be designated as Crown land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to L J & F J Taylor subject to a protective mechanism:
Total area: 2200 ha approximately.
This area comprises the western flank of the Hector Mountains from the lake margins to the crest of the range. The lower portions of this are well maintained oversown and topdressed and fenced pasture systems. Above the snowline fence which ranges in altitude between 700 - 1100 m.a.s.l. is an area of narrow leaved snowtussock to approximately 1500 metres where the vegetation tends to slim leaved snowtussock and some blue tussock. On the summit are extensive cushionfields. This area is important summer grazing to the Glen Nevis property and the designation includes covenant protection for values identified above the snowline fence.
3.2.1 Protective mechanism:
A conservation covenant is proposed for approximately 1150 ha above the snowline fence. In summary the conservation covenant is proposed for conservation purposes in particular the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public and safeguarding the options of future generations. This covenant therefore has dual objectives of achieving conservation goals plus providing freedom of access to the public for the appreciation and recreational enjoyment of the land. The proposed covenant provides for monitoring and the regulation of a grazing regime. Further details contained in the draft covenant document attached.
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 Plans +
Appendix 2: Conservation covenant document (pdf
1 MB)
Public Access New Zealand
13 June 2001
Commissioner of Crown lands
c/- Knight Frank (NZ) Limited
ALEXANDRA
PANZ is disappointed with the information provided in the summary
of the Preliminary Proposal, which is more a justification for
the proposals through selective presentation of information, than
a balanced rendering of the full document.
We believe that the paucity of relevant information would put
most submitters at a disadvantage in making meaningful criticism
and comment. It is only because we obtained, a mere two days before
the closing date for submissions, the full Preliminary Proposal
of 10 December 1999, the Report on Changes to the Draft Preliminary
Proposal of 27 July 2000, and DOC's full conservation resources
report, that we had sufficient information to critique the proposals.
This is a situation that must be rectified if the tenure review
process is to enjoy public credibility.
The severe time constraints caused by LINZ's delays in responding
to our official information requests has impacted on our ability
to submit a refined view of the proposal. Consequently the following
is a unstructured commentary, however our conclusions are clear.
In summary PANZ believes that the advertised proposal,
if adopted, would be a poor outcome for the Crown and the public
of New Zealand. We believe that the original preliminary proposal
would have provided, with minor amendment, an excellent result,
being in accord with the requirements of the Crown Pastoral Land
Act. However we believe that the advertised proposals are not.
We submit that unless all the high altitude lands from the snowline fence in the west across the Hector tops, and down to the Nevis River becomes conservation area, with public access from the west secured, then no tenure review should proceed. The Government, and the CCL, has no obligation to proceed with a poor deal, and we believe that this discretion must be exercised in this case.
The central problem is the freeholding of alpine lands.
We have difficulty reconciling the new official advocacy of
the present proposals with that recorded previously (Recommendations
for Draft Preliminary Proposal, 10 December 1999).
For instance, the whole of the Nevis Mountains block down to the
snowline fence, excluding a stock access route, was earlier recommended
to be restored to full Crown ownership and control as conservation
area-
"In our opinion, the combination of attributes this land unit has squarely places it in the highest level designation".
"The Hector Mountains have high landscape values, especially in a cultural sense, as they are a continuation of the Remarkables Range. The quality of the vegetation cover is very good over this land unit. The variation of altitude, aspect and landform gives a great diversity of plant ecosystems, which in turn support a large diversity of fauna populations. The habitats range from tussock land, alpine cushion and fellfields, shrublands, bogs and flushes".
"These attributes are also recognised by the Otago Conservation Management Strategy which names the Hector Mountains as part of Special Place 26 The Remarkables".
"The mountain section of the property has high landscape values, the Hectors are the southern extension of the Remarkables Range and reach a height of 1678 m.a.s.l. Such mountain landscapes as this are highly valued for tourism, recreation and nature conservation".
"The inherent values found on this lease are varied and very extensive in relation to the total land area of the property. Our recommendation is that this large area should become conservation land to afford the best protection and management of inherent values and to promote the ecological sustainability of this land. The proposal confers most property rights and control to the Crown over 80% of the area of the lease. Covenant arrangements have been discounted as the strength of property rights would then be too weak to fulfill the objectives of the Act. Even a comprehensive covenant agreement could not predict all eventualities."
"Most of the Hector Mountains could not be classed as ecologically sustainable for pastoral purposes".
"No new fencing is proposed... as it would have a large negative impact on landscape values..."
"If the Hector Mountains unit is capable of an economic use, it is not obvious to us. Certainly there are opportunities for heli or cross-country skiing and eco-tourism. We doubt that these activities could be defined on this property alone.... pastoralism alone would not constitute an economic use".
Contrast the above statements with those in the Report on Changes to DPP, 27 July 2000-
"The DGC delegate accepts that the high altitude land can be freeholded subject to a very restrictive conservation covenant over this area".
"We have accepted the proposal to freehold land at a relatively high altitude with some reluctance. The area now proposed for freehold extends to an altitude of 1678 metres. Freeholding to this altitude raises issues of ecological sustainability. This land has also been subject to some public interest in the past for recreational activity and will no doubt be subject to further close public scrutiny".
"Taking [taken] in isolation we have concerns about freeholding the high altitude land as it will be difficult to manage this land in a manner that is ecologically sustainable".
"Some inherent values have been identified on the land proposed for freeholding however these may well be best protected by the proposed freeholding outcome".
"There are other issues...that we wish to advise the CCL of. In particular we note that it will be impracticable to fence the boundary between the proposed freehold and the conservation land as any fencing on this ridge would be subject to significant snow and wind damage".
Proposal doesn't promote sustainable ecological management
It is clear from the official papers in our possession (other
relevant appendices have been inexplicably withheld), that the
natural inherent values of the area now proposed for freeholding
and covenanting are similarly high in value to those proposed
for protection as conservation area.
There is no rationale presented in terms of the requirements of
the CPLA in the advice to the CCL as to why one area deserves
restoration to full Crown ownership and control and the other
does not. The implied rationale is that this compromise was necessary
to reach a deal with the lessee, with the most recent advice tailored
to justify that end. However there is no requirement on the CCL
under the CPLA to reach deals, no matter what the outcome for
the Crown. The CCL has a discretion to discontinue tenure review
at any time (s33).
Land Use Capability
Most of the area proposed for freeholding with a covenant
is classified as LUC VIIe. Class VII is unsuitable for arable
use and has severe limitations or hazards under perennial vegetation.
In this case the susceptibility to erosion is the dominant limitation
to use. Above the snowline fence the slopes are moderately steep
with evidence of slump, sheet and slip erosion. Additionally on
the rolling range crest there is wind erosion. At these altitudes
and aspects, such limitations are to be expected.
We fail to see how such lands with such inherent characteristics,
can possibly qualify for freeholding under a grazing regime that
can only weaken vegetative cover. This is a profound failure to
satisfy the objects of part 2 of the CPL Act to-
"promote the management of reviewable land in a way that
is ecologically sustainable" and "to enable the
protection of the significant inherent values.
The CPLA defines 'inherent values' to mean a value arising from
-
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;
In this instance the selection of a protective mechanism (in
the form of a covenant) is totally inappropriate given the major
deficiencies of its terms and the statutory directive that preference
is to be given to "the restoration of the land concerned
to full Crown ownership and control" as the means of protection.
Freeholding and covenanting 1150 hectares is not an insignificant
issue. Clearly, by the intent of the draft preliminary proposal,
restoring full Crown ownership and control over this area was
the preference. The fact that the lessee does not now agree with
this outcome does not negate this preference as a Crown obligation
under the CPLA.
Legal opinion available to PANZ is that Land Use Capability classifications
are a direct reflection of inherent values and must be taken into
account by the CCL.
Topdressing and oversowing
Why is this being promoted up to 100m above the snowline fence?
We suspected that this may be to keep stock down, in the absence
of boundary fencing with the proposed conservation area however
the official advice makes no reference to such a rationale. OS
&TD appears to be solely to utalise the limited potential
for pastoral production. However there is no advice on the sustainability
of such development. Work by K F O'Connor, R G Paterson and others,
and the conclusions of the Martin Report strongly suggest that
such development on this class of land is unsustainable, as is
continued grazing of 'unimproved' tussock grasslands. Back in
1980 O'Connor stated that "there are very fundamental uncertainties
about the sustainability of almost any form of exploitive pastoralism
in most of the South Island and North Island high country, especially
in high altitude zones..." (Changes in Tussock Grasslands
& Mountain Lands, TGMLI Annual Report 1981).
The Martin report was a major driving force behind the CPLA and
should be taken into account by the CCL in any interpretations
of his responsibilities under the CPLA. The Minister of Lands
referred to the Martin report in his introduction to the CPL Bill
(Hansard 6/4/95). Mr Marshall latter said in Parliament-
"We were helped by a very constructive report-the Martin report-chaired by Graham Martin of the Otago Regional Council. A committee came down with a report that suggested that many of the land management practices in the pastoral lands of the South Island were unsustainable. Buoyed by that report we then went on an extensive consultation process, both with the farming community-the pastoral farmers or runholders-and with the conservation groups" (Hansard 7/5/98)
Why wasn't a review of current scientific knowledge included
in the advice to the CCL?
Topdressing and oversowing at this altitude cannot qualify as
an economic use. It most certainly is ecologically damaging as
the diversity of native species which are well adapted to the
existing environment will be displaced by a narrow range of exotic
plants dependent on further fertiliser applications for their
continued dominance.
Wish to graze not a relevant consideration
The only official justification in the proposal for freeholding
above the snowline fence is that "this area is important
summer grazing to the Glen Nevis property". Such considerations
are not relevant to the objects of Part 2 of the CPLA.
Grazing of this class of land doesn't enhance conservation of
inherent values. There is no credible scientific evidence to the
contrary. There is a duty to 'promote' ecologically sustainable
management. Continuation of a pastoral use regime with its inherent
loss of soil fertility and risk of soil loss through diminution
of vegetative cover is unavoidably antagonistic to such a goal.
The Covenant provides that after monitoring of vegetation condition
the Minister of Conservation "may" require grazing reductions
or destocking. However, based on official performance elsewhere
in the high country, there is little cause for confidence that
any reductions in grazing would ever occur.
Boundary fencing impractical
The agreement provides an option of boundary fencing along
the range crest however this would be a blot on the landscape
and impractical to maintain against snow damage. Our view is supported
by the earlier official papers. The provision for fencing in the
latest proposal appears to be no more than an official cop-out,
in full knowledge that this is impractical. So the sustainability
issue extends onto the proposed conservation area.
The reality is that there will be no fence between the freehold
covenanted land and the land that is proposed to be transferred
to DOC. Consequently the entire area will be liable to be grazed
as if it were still within a pastoral lease.
Other development possible
Under the terms of the covenant the Minister of Conservation
could in future agree to tree planting, erection of buildings,
and burning, all without any public objection procedures.
The owner may carry out any other works and development not expressly
prohibited by the covenant.
For an area of such high natural values this is unacceptable.
The only preventative remedy would be provided by public land,
with public accountability for administrative decisions made by
DoC and the Minister of Conservation.
Contrary to Conservation Management Strategy
The whole of the Hector Mountains, including the area proposed
on Glen Nevis for covenanting, is designated a 'Special Place'.
Actions required to be taken under the CMS include creating and
gazetting a conservation park covering this area, subject to its
own management plan.
DOC has earlier stated this was the intention in the conservation
resources report on Ben Nevis Station which states under 'detailed
proposals' that "the Hector Mountains and all the main catchments
of the main catchments of the major tributaries will become conservation
estate and eventually form part of the proposed Remarkables Conservation
Park" (p 9).
We are disappointed that the DOC Glen Nevis conservation resources
report implies that the 'Special Place' designation only applies
to the Nevis Valley when clearly this is not the case.
We are most concerned that the proposed deal may result in a freehold
enclave within a future Remarkables Conservation Park, or it will
set a precedent for creating the boundary for the Park high up
along the tops of the Remarkables and Hector Mountains.
The inherent values of this land are part of wider inherent natural
values of the Hector Mountains. Freeholding with the prospect
of pasture 'enhancement' at high elevations, will create a discordant
element in the landscape, when all other comparable areas have
either been or are intended to be restored to full Crown ownership
and control with such development precluded.
Despite the terms of the covenant stating that the land will be
managed consistent with the objectives of the park, prior freeholding
and covenanting on Glen Nevis will effectively preempt the future
objectives of the park and the public process for the formation
of a management plan.
No effective security for covenant
The intention to create the covenant under section 7 Conservation
Act is subverted by the express ability to alter its terms without
public process. Section 7 deems any interest in land held by the
Minister, short of ownership, to require public notification and
opportunity for submission in the same way as for disposal of
conservation areas.
However any alteration to the covenant, by virtue of its proposed
terms, could entail disposal of the Crown's interest in providing
for public access and recreational enjoyment of the land, agreeing
to detrimental terms of public use, or even the removal of the
perpetual nature of the covenant. It is no more than a private
arrangement between the Minister of Conservation and the landowner.
This is completely unacceptable.
Alternatively any future owner could, under the Property Law Act,
unilaterally initiate Court action to extinguish the covenant.
Fostering "a spirit of partnership" is hardly a measurable
performance standard for either 'partner'. Such a partnership
(undefined) can be deemed to mean whatever either partner/party
deems is to mean in any future circumstance. Such a basis for
management is an abject failure to meet the requirements of either
the CPLA or the Conservation Act.
No assurance for public recreation
Contrary to a claim in the Summary of the Preliminary Proposal,
freedom of access for the public is not provided within the covenant
area as recreational use is only "permitted". This implies
that prior permission is required, with no express prohibition
on charging, and with no remedies for the public if permission
is denied. We have no confidence in DOC, going by performance
elsewhere, of ever upholding the public interest. Direct remedies
(political and legal) are needed for aggrieved members of the
public, such as are available for public lands.
The owner will "permit" public across the land from
1 April to 31 December. The Concise Oxford defines this
to mean, "give consent...for entry into a place". This
implies prior consent being sought and obtained, which is not
comparable to statutory rights of entry under the Conservation
Act. Conditions of entry, including demands for payment, could
be attached to such 'permission'. This limited provision only
caters for the winter and early summer period. It does not permit
public recreation 1 January to 31 March when the area is primarily
attractive for tramping in this alpine environment. There is need
for year-round, free of charge, secure rights of public access
and recreation, with legal remedies for the public if such rights
were ever breached. Going by existing performance, we have no
faith in public officials upholding the public interest when private
occupiers are involved.
The proposal therefore fails to 'secure' public access as required
by the CPLA (s 24).
We are particularly aggrieved that DOC does not see provision
for public recreation as a priority, despite have a statutory
duty to 'foster' recreation. Why couldn't they have negotiated
for instance for any member of the public "the full free
uninterrupted and unrestricted right liberty and privilege from
time to time and at all times by day and by night to pass repass
and recreate by foot" over the land, as has been provided
in other tenure review agreements?
Irrespective of any covenant provisions for public access and
recreation on privately occupied land, no matter how strong, the
requirements of the Health and Safety in Employment Act will have
primacy. This will be an occupied 'place of work' where the occupier
has legal liabilities for visitors. If a hazard is created by
commercial or other activities on the land, this could be used
as a reason for overriding the owner's covenant obligation to
permit public access. This highlights the inappropriateness of
continued private occupation of lands which clearly should be
returned to full Crown ownership and control, as public places.
Burning and fires
While there are express prohibitions on owner activities "unless
agreed in writing by the parties" there is only an obligation
to "control" any fires. There should be an obligation
to extinguish any fires, unless there is an intention by the Minister
to permit 'controlled' burning. That prospect is totally unacceptable
as this would damage the inherent values of the covenanted area
and endanger the adjoining conservation area from escaped fires.
Breaches of covenant
The provisions for dealing with any breaches to the terms
of the covenant are no more than private arrangements between
the parties. In the absence of any mechanisms for public information
or accountability for the performance of DOC and the Minister,
we have no faith in these provisions. The Waiorau-Lee case of
major breaches of legally binding agreements has destroyed any
residual public confidence in 'protective mechanisms' other than
full Crown ownership and control.
We have no reason for suggesting that the present lessee of Glen
Nevis has any intention of not honouring the terms of the proposed
covenant, but future owners may think differently. Unlike on public
lands, on freehold there are no legal remedies available to the
public.
However, irrespective of whom the freehold landowner may be, we
believe that the Crown is no longer a credible protector of public
values on private property.
Proposal for freeholding with covenant contrary to Government
policy
The Labour policy on the South Island pastoral leases
& tenure review states that "covenants should be confined
to relatively small, isolated, non-critical natural areas because
they don't provide adequate protection of conservation values
or security for public access and recreation".
"Labour will establish a network of high country tussock
grassland parks and reserves and promote ecological sustainable
land use under the Crown Pastoral Land Act".
The Alliance policy is - "a comprehensive programme for high
country lands in the South Island is needed which will include
substantial transfer to DOC of those parts of the high country
which have ecological and recreational value and which must be
protected from grazing, including adequate reserves for tussock
grassland, shrublands and wetlands".
The Greens "support the use of covenants as a means of fostering
conservation and recreation on private land. However they are
not the appropriate option for the protection of large areas,
in the context of the South Island high country".
Other aspects of proposal
In the official reports it is noted that the Nevis Road "only
appears to follow the legal road line". This matter must
be resolved as part of tenure review so that there is assured
legal public vehicle access along the road.
Land between State Highway 6 and Lake Wakatipu
It is crucial that all land in the narrow ribbon between the road
and lake that is still within the pastoral lease be retained as
recreation reserve.
Conclusion
The CCL has no legal obligation to continue with any tenure
review under the CPLA.
In this case the deal is so poor in realising the Crown's objectives,
that we believe that the CCL has an obligation to withdraw from
it unless all areas of significant inherent value (i.e. from the
snowline fence eastwards) can be negotiated for return to full
Crown ownership and control as a conservation area, with secure,
practical public foot access provided from the west.
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Co-Spokesman
Press Release by Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society on behalf of High Country Coalition
Proposals to freehold alpine land on top of the Hector Mountains near Queenstown have attracted considerable public opposition.
The Commissioner of Crown Lands has received 72 submissions on a tenure review proposal for Crown Pastoral Lease land on Glen Nevis Station. The proposal includes freeholding some 1,150ha of high altitude land. This is land above 900m, extending up to 1678m on the tops of the Hector Mountains. In exchange for this freeholded Crown land, the eastern side of the mountains down to the Nevis Valley is proposed for transfer to the Department of Conservation.
High Country Coalition Spokesperson, Sue Maturin said today that "the alpine land that the Crown is proposing to freehold has important conservation and recreation values, which should be protected and managed by the Department of Conservation."
The High Country Coalition is a new group of NGO's involving the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, Federated Mountain Clubs, Public Access New Zealand (PANZ), Federation of Freshwater Anglers and the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations.
The Coalition launched a campaign to save the tops of the Hector Mountains last month.
Sue Maturin said that "the overwhelming majority of submissions, (some 79%) rejected the official proposals."
The High Country Coalition believes the proposed Glen Nevis tenure review is a poor deal and should be turned down. The coalition believes that the proposals are contrary to the requirements of the new Crown Pastoral Land Act. They also go against Government policy.
"Tenure reviews are supposed to be win-win deals where the pastoral lessee gets to freehold land capable of sustainable use and the Crown retains land with high conservation values. But in this deal the lessee is being offered land, which has very high conservation values, and is incapable of sustainable pastoral use. Effectively, through lack of practical fencing, the runholder will also retain grazing opportunities over the remaining land to be transferred to the Department of Conservation," Sue Maturin said.
"The land that is proposed to come to DOC is valuable and we are pleased that it includes some low altitude valley floors. However taken overall, the deal is not a good one for conservation and recreation. We are asking the CCL to discontinue the deal unless public ownership can be negotiated for the alpine western faces of the Hector Mountains and secure public access from Lake Wakatipu can be provided," she said.
"This land should become part of the proposed Remarkables Conservation Park. It has rare plants and alpine herb communities and the hardy banded dotterel breeds on the mountain tops. The land also has high landscape values as it flanks Lake Wakatipu, and forms part of the spectacular skyline along the spine of the Hector Mountains."
This land is in the midst of one of New Zealand's top outdoor adventure destinations. It is a great place for tramping, climbing and cross country ski-ing and should be made accessible for year round recreation," she said.
ENDS