This page last modified 19 September 1998
South
Island high country
Otago leases
Po 236
Queenstown district
Otago Land District
Tenure review approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands (August)
1993
Landcorp Property Limited
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
CLOSEBURN STATION
BACKGROUND TO PROPOSAL
FILE: P236
PROPERTY NAME: Closeburn
LESSEE: J F Investments (NZ) Limited (D Broomfield)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pastoral Lease being Part Run 707, Block 6 Mid Wakatipu Survey District in CT386/121.
AREA: 2902.6088 hectares
OTHER LAND: 172.64 hectares freehold
LOCATION: 7 kms west of Queenstown on the Queenstown/Glenorchy road. The property is bounded by the Moke Lake Road to the east, Queenstown/Glenorchy road to the south and 12 Mile Reserve to the west.
KNOWN CONSERVATION VALUES:
BOTANICAL
LAKE FACES ABOVE QUEENSTOWN/GLENORCHY ROAD
This area has a vegetation cover of bracken, manuka and regenerating pittosporum dominated by broadleaf forest and small beech outliers. This area is important to protect the small remnants of beech forest in this locality, to preserve a corridor of native vegetation along the Glenorchy road and to shield any development.
RIDGE BETWEEN LAKE DISPUTE AND TWELVE MILE CREEK
This area contains an important seral vegetation community comprising dense manuka with emergent beech, broad leaf regeneration and some open grassland. It also provides an important visual backdrop to Lake Dispute and includes part of the Mt Creighton walking track which overlooks Lake Dispute.
LAKE DISPUTE FACE
This area on the north west side and overlooking Lake Dispute comprises regenerating native shrub land and forest communities which includes small clumps of Olearia hectori, a relatively rare species. This area also includes a small wetland at the head of Lake Dispute.
WEST BRANCH MOKE CREEK (ALSO KNOWN AS HANLEY CREEK)
This area was destocked under a Catchment Board run plan. It comprises beech forest in the lower creek margins and Chionochloa rigida and alpine herb fields at higher altitudes. This area compliments the adjacent scenic reserve.
BEECH FOREST REMNANTS EAST OF MT HANLEY
This area represents the largest remaining forest remnants on the property. It is also an important scenic backdrop to Moke Lake. This face also comprises intact dracophyllum unflorum shrubland.
RECREATION:
Several existing and potential walking opportunities are identified.
a. Walking track access from Glenorchy Road to Lake Dispute.
b. Mt Creighton loop track. Most of this track is within Mt Creighton Scenic Reserve, however a portion overlooking Lake Dispute is within Closeburn Pastoral lease.
c. West Branch of Moke Creek and Williamson Spur. A marginal strip will be established up Moke Creek, however this will not provide practical access. It is proposed to establish an easement walkway up Williamson Spur to a height of 750m and then sidle to the valley of Hanley Creek.
LANDSCAPE:
A. MOKE LAKE CATCHMENT -
The Moke Lake area is well known for its spectacular high country scenery. This landscape is characterised by the following: a glacial valley system; smooth mountain slopes and narrow valleys widening around the lake; a gradient of developed pastures at lower altitude changing to extensive short tussock grasslands and shrub land to tall tussock grasslands and alpine communities at high altitude. A feeling of remoteness and absence of human habitation in this area is an important feature.
B. LAKE DISPUTE / NINE MILE CREEK -
Lake Dispute is a "hidden" lake nestled in steep sided high mountains. It is relatively accessible from the Glenorchy Road and hence is appreciated by many.
C. LAKE SHORE TERRACE FACES ABOVE GLENORCHY ROAD -
These faces comprise regenerating native shrub species consistent with much of the margin of Glenorchy Road and forms an important visual corridor.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC SITES:
A. JOHNSTON/KYLES RACE & THE FIVE MILE PACK TRACK -
The pack track and race run side by side for most of their length from the saddle of Seven Mile on the Moke Lake Road, around the slopes of Bobs Peak to the head of Five Mile Creek.
B. HUT COMPLEX, MOKE LAKE ROAD YARDS -
This consists of a stone hut still in tact and the foundations of at least three other buildings. These buildings are believed to be associated with the farm of George Beer, dating back to 1878. He was a dairy man and was believed to have supplied milk to the miners in the Moonlight and Moke Creeks.
C. WAHI TAPU -
No information is currently available, though Herris Beattie in Maori Lore of Lake Alp and Fiord records the following Waitaha Tribe place names:
Puna-Mahaka Wai-ka Mahaka (Moke Lake), meaning twin waters.
D. FRESHWATER AND FAUNA ISSUES -
Closeburn comprises three small lakes; Lakes Moke, Dispute and Kirkpatrick. These water bodies have a very high recreational fishery value and are considered the resource at most risk from current adjoining land use. Some creeks are important spawning areas for galaxids and salmonoids and the lake shore margins are important for wildfowl.
KNOWN PUBLIC USE:
Most public use on Closeburn evolves around Moke Lake and to a lesser degree Lake Dispute. Most visitors to Moke Lake come by car via Moke Lake road, a formed gravel road not legalised. Visitors tend to stop at the recreation reserve on the north east shore of Moke Lake and some walk around the lake margin to the west.
The majority of visitors to Lake Dispute tend to use the existing farm access track or the foot access track available from the Glenorchy Road. Both Lakes Dispute and Moke are popular fishing sites.
Lake Kirkpatrick is periodically used over the summer for picnicking.
Casual camping occurs at Moke Lake periodically over the summer. Trampers and goat shooters periodically tramp up Williamson Spur into the west branch of Moke creek. No figures for levels of use exist for this area.
BRIEF PROPOSAL
1. To accept the surrender of pastoral lease P236 (Closeburn), total area 2902.6088ha.
2. To classify an area of 1809ha approximately (Area A) as Farm Land and to dispose of this on freehold title.
3. To set aside 1093ha approximately (Areas B, C, C2, D) as reserves to be administered by the Department of Conservation.
4. To register a Management Agreement on the freehold title under Section 29, Conservation Act 1987 to facilitate public access, landscape protection and other conservation aspects of the western portion of the property and to register a walkway easement to provide public access to Lake Dispute.
5. To make surrender and issue of title conditional on the lessee agreeing to reserving from existing freehold for conservation purposes the following:
i) Two areas of wetland at the head of Moke Lake within freehold title 13B/1028 (Areas E and F on attached plan). An area which includes the vehicle access track where it crosses the wetland is to remain in freehold title.
ii) A strip of land approximately 50 meters wide above the Queenstown/Glenorchy Road (Area C1).
6. To include an area presently Reserve Land on Moke Lake peninsula (7 ha approximately) in the adjoining freehold title (Area G) subject to a management agreement on the freehold title under Section 29 Conservation Act to facilitate landscape protection.
7. To lay off marginal strips adjacent to the following creeks: West Branch Moke Creek West arm Moke inlet East arm Moke inlet Bushy Creek
8. The lessee to pay 50% share of fencing reserve boundaries with proposed freehold. DOC to pay 100% of fencing of marginal strips.
[Text of Public Lands Coalition & Wakatipu Environmental Society pamphlet January 1993]
HELP PROTECT LAKE DISPUTE & MOKE LAKE
IT'S OUR HERITAGE THAT IS BEING SOLD
Scenic backdrops to Lake Dispute & Moke Lake to be privatised.
Just before Christmas Land Corp announced a proposal to give away 1,809ha of Closeburn Pastoral lease in return for DOC getting 1093 ha of reserves.
The public have until January 29th to make submissions.
The Public Lands Coalition, PLC,, comprising Forest & Bird, Federated Mountain Clubs and the N.Z. Fish & Game Council and the Wakatipu Environment Society, WES, believe that:
The deal is not good enough.
The Lessee is to get the eyes of the run including land with high nature conservation, landscape and recreation values and DOC mostly gets the unproductive portions and the pine trees.
Closeburn is close to Queenstown and is best known for it's two scenic Lakes, Lake Dispute and Moke lake.
Lake Dispute is a small lake nestled in a deep valley. It is a popular walk for any one seeking peace and open space and has great fishing.
The Lessee in conjunction with an American and two Indonesian partners hopes to subdivide terraces leading to the lake for residential and tourist development. The rest of the land would continue to be farmed.
The current proposal involves freeholding the land surrounding 3 sides of the Lake almost to the Lakes edge.
Unless the Lake surrounds are protected this will mean a complete loss of "wilderness" values as it is likely that people will be able to drive to the Lake.
A wide marginal strip is not enough
Native vegetation around the part of the Lake that is to be freeholded is beginning to grow again and should be protected as open space.
The dramatic steep and craggy backdrop to Moke Lake with beech forest snaking down the deeply incised gullies is also to be freeholded. Much of this land with tussock and dracophyllum shrubs is classified as being unsuitable for farming and under current Government policy should be retired and surrendered..
Continued farming, especially if it is accompanied by burning will prevent regeneration of the native vegetation.
There is potential for a challenging walk up to Mt Hanley, which would provide stunning views of Moke Lake and Lake Wakatipu.
Doc recognises that this area has significant landscape and conservation values and is suggesting that it could he protected via a management agreement. It is suggested that a management agreement would allow for a walkway up to Mt Hanley but this may not guarantee public access at all times.
Management Agreement Not Secure
But management agreements arc pretty secret deals between DOC and the lesssee to which the public have no right of input and they can not be registered against the title. This means that it is not a legally water tight way of protecting land especially if the current lessee sells it.
We believe the current lessee wishes to build some tourist units close to the lake and we are told these would be hidden from view,
If it warrants protection then it should go to DOC
PLC and WES believe this area known as Williamson Spur and the Mt Hanley Faces must go to DOC to be properly protected and must not be freeholded.
Moke Lake Peninsula should stay as a reserve
The Moke Lake Peninsula is currently a reserve, but- it is proposed to freehold 7ha on the top of it. The lessee has agreed that there should be no structures built on this scenic peninsula and he him self has no plans to, but we can not predict what any future owners may do. 'The safest way to ensure that the Peninsula is protected is to keep it as a reserve.
Wetlands to be protected
One good thing about the proposal is that the wetlands at the base of Mokc lake which are currently freehold are to go to DOC for protection.
We are not opposed to freeholding some parts
We are not opposed to freeholding those parts of the lease which are suitable for
farmland and more intensive development and don't have high conservation, landscape or recreation values. Indeed the freeholding of some areas creates an opportunity to protect areas which are not currently protected. it's just that in this case the proposal does not do this adequately as large areas of land with high landscape, conservation and recreation values is to be freeholded.
Once these arc freeholded we will never get them back unless the Crown pays huge amounts which is very unlikely.
In summary our view is:
1. Support reserve status for areas marked BCDE and F on the map.
2. Williamson Spur - Mt Hanley Faces area H to be transferred to DOC and not freeholded.
3. The entire Moke Lake Peninsula to remain a reserve.
4. The landscape Zone around Lake Dispute area I, to go to DOC and not be freeholded..
Please make the most of this opportunity to have your say. You sholud write, by 29th January [1993] to:
Mr Ken Taylor
Land Corp
Box 27
Alexandra
We hope this pamphlet has given you enough information but
if you would like more please phone Sue in Dunedin on 4779677
or Steve in Queenstown on 4426-431.
Public Access New Zealand
Wednesday, January 27, 1993
The Manager,
Landcorp Property Limited,
P O Box 27,
ALEXANDRA.
I write on behalf of a new national organisation which has as
its central aim the preservation and improvement of public access
to New Zealand's outdoors.
In less than four months from our launching we have attracted
support from individuals and organisations representing 13,000
people from throughout the country. Already we represent the broadest
grouping of outdoor recreational interests in New Zealand, with
all manner of land, freshwater and sea recreationalists subscribing
to our campaign.
Of particular concern and interest to us is the protection of
natural values and the improvement of public access to the South
Island high country especially Crown pastoral leasehold.
In summary while we welcome opportunities for exchanges of freehold
and lands of the Crown that better serve the above objectives,
and opportunities to enhance these on pastoral leasehold, in the
case of the Closeburn proposals we consider them to fall well
short of the mark. We also believe that the proposals involving
reclassification of some 'pastoral land' to 'farm land', as the
precurser to offering freehold title, is not in accord with the
provisions of the Land Act 1948 and must be dropped.
I was personally involved in assessing earlier proposals for Closeburn
and had the benefit of discussions with the new lessee David Broomfield.
At that time Mr Broomfield stated that he considered that freehold
was inappropriate at the head of Lake Moke and he was prepared
to transfer such to the Crown. The current proposals do not reflect
this. All lake visual catchments (both Moke and Dispute) should
be under direct Crown control so as to prevent future subdivisional
and tourist development. The Queenstown district is under such
intense developmental pressure, especially around water margins,
that the few remaining undeveloped lake frontages in the district
should be maintained as uncluttered open spaces available for
public use. In this regard we are totally opposed to freeholding
of any existing reserve areas. We support extension of reserve
status to areas B, C, D, E and F.
Purhaps the greatest anomoly with the proposals concerns Williamsons
Spur and the Mt Hanley faces. This is a steep and partly high
altitude backdrop to Moke Lake that should be retained in Crown
ownership with provision for public foot access at all times.
We have no confidence that private ownership with restrictions
via management agreements or covenants is an adequate substitute
for Crown ownership and control. The proposed arrangments are
insecure and preclude public involvment in their formulation and
enforcement. DOC's proposals clearly establish that there is a
strong 'public interest' in the area. This being the case it must
remain under direct Crown control. The face is prdominently Land
Capability Class 7 (having severely limitations for grazing and
no ability for cultivation) and partly Class 8 (being totally
unsuitable for any form of primary production). By no stretch
of the immagination does it qualify as 'farm land', able to be
offered as freehold.
We refer you to the directly relevant subsections of section 51
Land Act 1948:
"51. Classification of Crown land--(l) All Crown land available for disposal under this Act may be classified by the [Commissioner] into--
(a) Farm land, being land suitable or adaptable for any type of farming:
(d) Pastoral land, being land that is suitable or adaptable primarily for pastoral purposes only.
'Pastoral land' must be "primarily"..."suitable
or adaptable" for "pastoral purposes only" whereas
'farm land' is suitable or adaptable "for any type of farming."
However the Land Act is not explicit on what is meant by 'farm
land' or 'pastoral land'.
An analogous Act, the Land Settlement Promotion and Land Acquisition
Act 1952 (hereinafter known as the Land Settlement Act) has objectives
very similar to those of the Land Act. The Land Settlement Act
is "an Act to provide for the closer settlement of farm land...when
subdivided and developed, will be, capable of substantially increased
production..." (Long Title). The scheme of the Land Act is
to provide for the purchase and development of land (Part III),
and the classification and alienation of Crown land (Part IV),
as well as providing a range of tenures and an administrative
structure. The context in which the Land Settlement Act defines
'farm land' (s 2) appears very similar to that of the Land Act.
s 2 (1) of the Land Settlement Act reads, in part--
"Farm land" means land that, in the opinion of the Land Valuation Tribunal, is or should be used exclusively or principally for agricultural purposes:
Provided that, where land is being used exclusively or principally for agricultural purposes could, in the opinion of the Tribunal, be used with greater advantage to the community generally for non-agricultural purposes, it shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed not to be farm land."
This definition must be construed by reference to the accompanying
definition--
"Agricultural purposes" has a meaning corresponding to the term "agriculture", which for the purposes of this definition means the cultivation of the soil for the production of food products and other useful products of the soil, and includes the use of the land for horticultural or pastoral purposes, or for the keeping of pigs, bees, or poultry:"
O'Keefe at 185 ( O'Keefe, J A B. 1967. The Law and Practice Relating
to Crown Land in New Zealand) is of the view that although "farm
land" is not defined in the Land Act, the definition in the
Land Settlement Act would be followed, because application may
be made to the Land Valuation Tribunal under s 2 (3) for an order
declaring whether or not any land is farm land. There are at least
two New Zealand decisions bearing on the matter of what is "farm
land" as it applies to the Land Settlement Act. See Re a
Sale, Exton to Grenville [1951] N.Z.L.R. 636; G.L.R. 312; Re a
Proposed Sale, Hunt and Anr. to Nelson Pine Forests Ltd. [1957]
N.Z.L.R. 451 (Land Valuation Court, Nelson, 2 April 1957).
Archer J held In re a Sale, Exton to Grenville that the definition
of "farm land" contained in s 2 of the Land Settlement
Act is not intended to include land used for the growing of timber.
Two central issues in this case revolved around whether use of
the land constituted "cultivation of the soil". That
decision was followed In re a Proposed Sale, Hunt and Anr. to
Nelson Pine Forests Ltd. where it was again held that land being
used for forestry was not "farm land" as it was not
being used for agricultural purposes.
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (third edition) defines 'farm' as
"a tract of land held...for the purpose of cultivation".
Of more assistance is the Concise Oxford Dictionary (seventh edition),
which defines 'farm' as meaning "cultivate, till; till the
soil, be farmer" and 'farmer' as "one who cultivates
a farm." 'Pastoral' is defined as meaning "of shepherds;
relating to flocks and herds" and 'pasture' as "herbage
for cattle, sheep, etc." The key distinction appears to be
one of cultivation and the tilling of the soil verses mere grazing
of herbage. Such an interpretation gains support from the scheme
of the Land Act which, by sections 66 and 66AA confers "no
right to the soil" (ss 66 (2), 66AA (2)) over pastoral leases
and pastoral occupation licences. This is reinforced by section
108 requiring prior written consent of the Commissioner for cultivation,
ploughing, and sowing for tenures over pastoral lands alone. There
are no such requirements for tenures over 'farm land'.
In a literal and ordinary sense, if the ability to cultivate or
till the soil is the pivotal determinate between 'pastoral land'
and 'farm land' then the former is exclusive of the latter. All
the land in question must be capable of cultivation for it to
qualify as 'farm land.' Only those portions suitable or adaptable
for cultivation can be classified as 'farm land' and new tenures
offered.
Section 51 (1) (d), being an amendment to the Land Act (1979 No.
57, s. 2), provided a liberalisation of what previously applied
to pastoral lands. Whereas pastoral land was previously "land
suitable or adaptable only for pastoral purposes", the 1979
amendment, by adding "primarily" to the definition,
allowed secondary uses other than pastoral. Hansard (Vol 427 at
4051) records the Government rationale for amending the definition
of 'pastoral land' in s 51 of the Act. The Minister of Lands stated
that "in fact, there is little, if any, land that can strictly
be classified as being suitable only for pastoral purposes--other
uses, such as water and soil conservation and recreation, apply
in most pastoral country." During the passage of the Bill
the Minister did not add that there were any other uses of pastoral
lands, such as farming or cultivation.
It appears that the proposed reclassifications of 'pastoral land'
to 'farm land' on the Mt Hanley faces will exceed the authority
to classify Crown land in terms of s 51 of the Land Act 1948 and
should not proceed.
We believe that reserve or conservation status need not apply
to these faces. A special grazing lease under section 67(2) Land
Act 1948 could have customised conditions that meet the needs
of both the public and the present pastoral leasee. In this regard
we also believe that the eastern faces above Lake Dispute should
be similarily treated.
Walkway Proposals
We consider that Walkways, carrying the ability to be closed for
public use at any time at the request of adjoining or underlying
landoccupiers, are an inadequate mechanism for providing for public
use. All the proposed Walkways should be replaced by registered
easements in gross for the purposes of public foot access at all
times. There should be a further public foot access easement between
Lakes Dispute and Moke.
Yours faithfully,
Bruce Mason,
Convener
CLOSEBURN TENURE EXCHANGE PROPOSAL
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS
| Points made in Submission | |
| Public Lands Coalition | la 2 1 3a 5 6 8 10 |
| Wakatipu Tramping and Mountaineering Club | la 2 1 3c 8 10 |
| Ms Louise Petherbridge | la 5 |
| Ms Joy St George | la 5 7 |
| Mr Peter Lohmann | la 2 1 3b 5 |
| Huata Holmes | ld. Lakes Moke and Dispute
should be left untouched due to their spiritual Maori dimensions. Failing 2 then: 1 3 4 5 |
| W E Lewis | ld 5 |
| Mrs C Jones | la 2 1 |
| Mr David York | la 5 |
| Waitaki Branch Royal Forest and Bird Society |
5 |
| D B McKenzie | 4 2 1 3b |
| Wilsons, Hoggs, Mitchells (8) | Id 5 7 |
| J R & E J Reidie | 4 1 5 |
| Mrs B J MacIntyre | 5 7 |
| Ms Rachel Perkins | 2 1 3a 5 7 9 |
| Wakatipu Environmental Society | 11 13 12 |
| R S Nicol | 2 1 5 |
| P D McIntosh | 14 |
| W M Taylor | 5 7 |
| Mr Geof Baylis | 15 |
| Mrs Jenny Cambell | 2 1 3a 5 |
| Otago Conservation Board | 2 1 5 7 |
| Mrs Joan Kenyon | la 2 1 3a 5 6 8 10 |
| Mrs V Gardner | la 2 1 3a 5 6 8 10 |
| Mr Niel Wales | 1 |
| Public Access New Zealand | 4 2 6 10 16 17 |
| Mrs Gwen Wales | 4 2 1 3a |
| Mr Rob Snoep | la 2 1 3b |
| G & H Chance | la 4 2 1 3a 21 |
| Mr Brian Turner | lb 5 |
| S R Walker | la 2 1 5 |
| Mrs M M Jamieson | ld 5 |
| Mrs Patricia Wood | la 4 2 1 3a |
| C & K Batting | ld |
| The Hamel family | ld 1 5 7 14 17 |
| K A & G R Fuller | la 4 2 1 3a |
| E W McDonald | lb |
| Ms D Sersen | ld 5 |
| Mr A Borrell | lc 11 |
| Queenstown Lakes District Council | lc 18 |
| Otago Fish and Game Council | ld 1 3a |
| Otago Tramping and Mountaineering Club | Ic 2 1 3b 6 8 9 19 |
| Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand | lb 19 |
| Southland Tramping Club | la 2 1 3c 6 |
| Dr H Barr | la 4 2 3b 6 18 |
| Mr J Foster, Ben Lomond Station | la 11 |
| A J & A Patterson | Id 5 |
| Mr M E Ayre | la 2 1 3c 9 |
| Mr C Pearson | la 2 6 9 |
| Ms V Shepherd | ld 5 |
Refer to following page for definition of code for points made in submission.
CLOSEBURN TENURE EXCHANGE PROPOSAL
ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS
All submissions are grouped into degree of support or opposition to proposal:
| Code | No. | |
| la | 20 | Support tenure exchange proposal conditionally |
| lb | 4 | Express general support for PLC submission expressing conditional support |
| lc | 4 | Express concern about proposal. |
| ld | 20 | Oppose tenure exchange proposal. |
| 48 | Total who oppose the tenure exchange proposal in its present form. |
Main points of all submissions:
| 1 | 22 | Oppose portion of Peninsula Reserve being freeholded, should remain reserve. |
| 2 | 19 | Oppose Hanley face and Williamson Spur being freeholded, prefer reserving in DOC estate. |
| 3a | 7 | Oppose east side of Lake Dispute being freeholded, no preference stated. |
| 3b | 5 | Prefer DOC estate |
| 3c | 4 | Prefer retained as lease or special Lease. |
| 16 | Total who oppose East side of Lake Dispute being freeholded. | |
| 4 | 9 | Support areas B, C, D, F., F being Reserve, balance remain in pastoral lease (see copy of original proposal map appended). |
| 5 | 23 | Concern about building/subdivision around Moke Lake, preservation of scenic quality, remote feeling. A petition with 212 signatures was received opposing any private or commercial development around the Moke Lake area. |
| 6 | 7 | Oppose use of management agreements |
| 7 | 7 | Need to preserve areas with remote scenic quality/recreation values within reasonable proximity of Queenstown. |
| 8 | 4 | RMA - Not suitable for protecting lands with high conservation values. |
| 9 | 4 | Historic pack track should be protected with an easement. |
| 10 | 3 | Need for access between lakes. |
| 11 | 3 | Condition to be included in freehold title or freehold being conditional on requirement that land be cleared of wilding trees. |
| 12 | 1 | Around Moke Lake Peninsula. |
| 13 | 1 | Appropriate fencing required around Lake Kirkpatrick |
| 14 | 2 | Oppose freeholding class VII land. |
| 15 | 1 | Retain the status quo. |
| 16 | 1 | Reclassification of Hanley faces illegal under the Land Act. |
| 17 | 2 | Supports issue of Special Lease for Hanley Face and east side of Lake Dispute. |
| 18 | 2 | Freeholding to be conditional on the lessee undertaking a plan change application to the QLDC. |
| 19 | 2 | Need for legal provision for existing public road access. |
| 20 | 1 | Area 'A' to remain in Pastoral lease. |
| 21 | 1 | Total Property should be purchased by the Crown. |
Landcorp Property Limited
9 August 1993
Bruce Mason
Convenor
Public Access New Zealand
Dear Sir
EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS - CLOSEBURN PASTORAL LEASE
I can now advise that the Commissioner of Crown Lands has consented to the following with respect to the exchange of property rights over the area presently held within Closeburn Pastoral Lease:
1. The surrender of the total area of pastoral lease P236 Closeburn, being 2902.6088 ha under Section 145 of the Land Act 1948.
2. The classification of 1100ha approximately of the previous pastoral lease as shown delineated on the attached map as farm land under Section 51 of the Land Act 1948 and disposal of this land on freehold title to the present lessee, J F Investments Ltd.
3. The issue of a special lease under Section 67(2) of the Land Act 1948 over the area known as Hanley Faces and shown on attached map (area 350ha approximately), under terms and conditions as generally described below:
Term: 30 years from date of issue with no right of renewal.
Rental: $3 per Stock Unit in lease per annum.
Rental Review: every 5 years based on market rental per stock units in lease.
Stock limit in lease: 150 stock units equivalent on year round basis.
Lessor may vary the stock limit or prescribe time of year the block may be grazed to ensure sustainable grazing or to accommodate other interests such as nature conservation.
Free right of public access to exist over the lease area.
Lessee to carry out a programme of vegetation monitoring using oblique and close-up photographs.
Lessor to have rights to vary rate or period of grazing on monitoring showing a deterioration in vegetation.
Lessee will require lessors consent to carry out improvements.
Lessee will have no right of compensation for improvements.
Conditions included in pastoral leases pertaining to right to burn vegetation, payment of rent, right of lessors servants to enter, transfer of lease rights, keeping land free of noxious plants and animals, exclusive rights to pasturage but no rights to the soil, no rights to the fee simple, no rights to construct roads or ditches shall be included in the lease.
4. The creation of Conservation Areas/ Reserves over approximately 1 802ha of previous pastoral lease land as shown on the attached map, to be administered by the Department of Conservation.
5. The creation of an access easement in favour of the public to provide foot access over proposed freehold land from the Queenstown-Glenorchy Road to Lake Dispute on a line approximated on the attached plan to be finalised on site through consultation between the present lessee and DOC.
6. The creation of a vehicle and stock access easement in favour of the title holder of the proposed freehold over the existing access track north of Lake Dispute within theproposed conservation area.
The surrender of lease and issue of freehold is conditional on the following:
7. The lessee agreeing to construct at his own cost approximately 14km of fencing of reserve boundaries in accordance with the schedule of fences set out below.
Schedule of Boundary Fences to be Completed by lessee:
1. East Side Lake Dispute 1.8 km
2. Nine Mile Creek, both sides 2.4 km
3. Lake Kirkpartrick and outlet creek both sides 2.5 km
4. East Arm Moke Lake Wetland and Lake Kirkpatrick outlet creek, both sides 1.5 km
5. West of Seven Mile Creek 0.6 km
6. Bushy Creek, both sides 1.4 km
7. Moke Lake Peninsula 1.4 km
8. West Arm Moke Wetland 1.3 kmPlus 10 % contingency 1.1km
Total Fencing Requirements: 14 km
8. (i) The transfer of two areas of wetland to the Department of Conservation, shown on attached map as E & F and presently within freehold title. A strip across each wetland area comprising the existing farm track to remain as freehold.
(ii) The transfer to the Department of Conservation of the area above the Queenstown Glenorchy road marked A on the attached map, presently freehold.
(iii) The Department of Conservation agreeing to a vehicle access easement in favour of the adjoining title over the vehicle track on the existing Moke Lake Peninsula Reserve.
(iv) The transfer to the Crown of the portion of freehold (3.3 ha approx) owned by the present lessee on Hanley Faces which is located north and west comer of the existing fenceline at the norwest comer of CT 5B/452 (Area B on attached plan).
(v) The Department of Conservation agreeing to a vehicle and stock access easement in favour of the adjoining title over the existing track along the east side of Lake Dispute.
(vi) The DOC agreeing to a minor adjustment of the boundary of the proposed freehold with the Crown land adjoining Seven Mile Creek.
9. The lessee paying in cash to the Crown a sum as agreed between the lessee and the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the date of settlement.
10. The lessee being granted consent under the terms of the pastoral lease to upgrade the portion of track between the northem end of Lake Dispute and the proposed freehold to a standard to provide all weather access. Approval to be subject to the lessee acquiring an engineers report and overseeing by Landcorp.
The lessee of Closebum has accepted this offer.
Thank you for your submission on this topic.
Yours faithfully
P H Murray
for Manager, Alexandra
LANDCORP PROPERTY LIMITED