This page created 17 June 2003 / last modified 4 August 2003
Po 364
Grandview Range - Wanaka
Otago Land District
Tenure review yet to be approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands
CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
GLENFOYLE 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 Glenfoyle Limited as lessees of Glenfoyle Pastoral Lease:
Legal description of land concerned:
Pastoral lease land:
Run 824 Lower Hawea Survey District, being all the land contained
in Instrument of Title OT338/41 (Otago Registry) comprising 3535.0000
hectares.
General description of proposal:
1. 435 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be restored to or retained in Crown control, subject to a qualified designation under Section 35(2)(b)(i) and Section 36(1)(a) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 as conservation area.
Qualified Designation:
An easement concession for farm management purposes access over a route through part of the conservation area
2. 3100 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 IVA of the Conservation Act 1987, Section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 and the following protective mechanisms under Section 40(1)(b), Section 40(2)(a), Section 40(2)(b) and 40(2)(c) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998.
Protective Mechanisms:
A ROW easement for unrestricted public foot, horse and non-motorised vehicle access on a route along the crest of the Grandview Range from the southern boundary to Bluenose on the northern boundaryA ROW easement for unrestricted public foot, horse and non-motorised vehicle access on a route along the crest of the Grandview Range to the conservation area from the southern boundary and also from Bluenose on the northern boundary.
A ROW easement for unrestricted public foot access on a route running over land designated for freehold disposal within the conservation area.
Two ROW easements for conservation management purposes access on a route from Glenfoyle Road and also on a route along the crest of the Grandview Range.
A conservation covenant over part of the proposed freehold land for the purpose of protecting an area of kanuka shrubland.
Further information including a copy of the plan, conservation covenant, easement concession and easement documents is available on request from the Commissioner's agent at the following address:
Tenure Review Team
Leader
Quotable Value New Zealand Limited
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 Limited at the above address.
All submissions are being collected and held by LINZ either directly or through its agents or contractors.
Submitters should note that all written submissions may be made available, in full, by LINZ to its employees, agents and contractors, the Department of Conservation and the public generally
Closing date of submissions:
Written
submissions must be received no later than 4 August 2003
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
FOR TENURE REVIEW OF
GLENFOYLE PASTORAL LEASE
UNDER THE CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
June 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 7 June 2003 [see above]
Appendix 2: Plan
Appendix 3: Farm management easement concession [not provided on this site]
Appendix 4: Conservation covenant [pdf 260k]
Appendix 5: Public access easement in gross "c-e-k-l-d" [pdf 128k]
Appendix 6: Public access easement "c-e" and "d-l-k-e" [pdf 140k]
Appendix 7: Public access easement `'e-f", "e-m" and "nj" [pdf 140k]
Appendix 8: Minister of Conservation management purposes easement "a-b-k-e", "e-m-n-j" and "e-f-g-h-i" [not provided on this site]
Appendix 9: Minister of Conservation management purposes easement in gross "c-e-k-b-l-d" [not provided on this site]
1. Details of reviewable instrument
Lease Name: Glenfoyle
Location: The property is located on Glenfoyle Road, 18 kilometres
from Wanaka, and 45 kilometres from Cromwell.
Lessee: Glenfoyle Limited
Pastoral Lease: Po 364
Land Registry Folio Ref: OT338/41 Otago Registry
Legal Description: Run 824 Lower Hawea Survey District
Area: 3,535.0000 hectares
Term of the Lease: 33 years from 1 July 1985 to 30 June
2018
2. Proposal
2.1 To be designated
as land to be restored to or retained in 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):
Area: 435 ha approximately (outlined in
pink on the plan appended)
2.2 To be designated as land to be disposed of bv freehold
disposal to persons svecifed subject to urotective mechanisms
in the way of a conservation covenant and public access and vehicles
for management purposes easements (under Section 35(3) and Section
40(1)(b) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998):
Persons Specified: Glenfoyle Limited
Area: 3100 ha approximately (outlined in green on the plan
appended)
3. Description of proposed
designations
3.1 Land to be restored to Crown control:
Total Area = 435
ha (approximately)
The majority of this land is situated on the west side of Camp
Creek and includes approximately 48 hectares in a small catchment
that flows into Ca Creek near the eastern extremity of the property.
The land is characterised by areas that have the following
significant inherent values:
The land is within RAP Lindis A10 taking in the more south
eastern part of the land and also RAP All taking in the more northern
section and is characterised by steep rocky slopes with much of
the land between the rock outcrops covered in manuka and kanuka.
The contrasts between the coarse textured shrublands and finely
textured grasslands in association with the rocky formations creates
a distinctive natural landscape.
The area has suitable habitat for the Otago Skinks, a Category
A threatened species and is located adjacent to Breast Creek which
has been identified in the Otago and Grand skink recovery plan
as a priority for habitat protection.
New Zealand Falcon, a category B threatened bird species are also
present in this area and appear to use it for breeding and nesting
purposes. The site also contains several uncommon plant species
and is one of the largest kanuka shrublands in the Lindis ecological
district. Scattered kanuka represents the highest altitude kanuka
in the Lindis and Dunstan ecological districts.
3.1.1 Farm management easement concession:
A farm management easement concession is proposed for route
between "fj" on the appended plan to permit passage
on foot, with or without implements, guns, farm dogs and farm
stock for farm management purposes. This route commences at the
4 wheel drive track to the south west of Camp Creek (point "f")
then crosses the conservation area to point marked "j".
The creation of the easement concession will provide a convenient
means to allow passage by the holder along with farm dogs and
farm stock between areas of land designated for freehold disposal.
3.2 To be designated as Crown land to be disposed of by
freehold disposal to Glenfoyle Limited
Total Area = 3100 ha (approximately)
This area includes approximately 20 hectares of a catchment with
an intact area of kanuka shrubland land the subject of a conservation
covenant along with public access and Minister of Conservation
management purposes easements.
The covenant area contains remnant of native vegetation that has
persisted within an area that has been quite intensely developed
and provides an attractive and natural component to a landscape
which is otherwise in pastoral farming. Management issues are
straight forward and the area has limited recreational value.
The balance of the pastoral lease includes a modern homestead,
farm buildings, farm fences and other improvements. The area is
made up of a small area of cultivatable flats and easy rolling
country and a balance of
improved tussock hill country rising to approximately 1230 metres
above sea level.
Approximately 151 hectares is within Class IV, 1110 hectares in
Class VI and the balance being 1839 hectares in Class VII. The
continuation of the property as a pastoral farming unit is the
highest and best use for the property.
3.2.1 Protective mechanisms:
Five easements are proposed:
3.2.1 .1 Public access easement along Crest of Grand View
Range: There is an appurtenant public access easement along the
crest of the Grand View Range starting firstly at point "d"
on the boundary with Sandy Point pastoral lease then over the
route marked as "d-l-k-e" on the appended plan. This
easement also starts at point marked "c" on the northern
boundary then over a route on an existing track to point "e".
The easement allows public access on foot, on or accompanied by
horses or by non-motorised vehicle (ie mountain bike).
3.2.1.2 Public access easement in gross along the Crest of the
Grand View Range: A second public access easement is also along
the crest of the Grand View Range. This is an easement in gross
and covers the same route as the appurtenant public access easement.
This will provide access by foot, on or accompanied by horses
and by non-motorised vehicle between the boundary with Sandy Point
pastoral lease and Blue Nose on the northern boundary of Glenfoyle
marked as "c-e-k-l-d" on the appended plan.
3.2.1.3 Public access easement over land on tracks through the
Conservation Area:
There is a public foot access easement over tracks running across
part of the conservation area shown marked as "e-f",
"e-m" and "nj" on the appended plan. The proposal
is for land in the tracks to be disposed of by freehold disposal
to Glenfoyle Limited
3.2.1.4 Minister of Conservation management purposes easements:
Two Minister of Conservation management purposes easements will
provide access firstly over tracks along the crest of the Grand
View Range and secondly from Glenfoyle Road to the edge of the
conservation area and on tracks both within and outside of the
conservation area. These will provide access to all parts of the
conservation area for management purposes over routes marked "a-b-k-e",
"e-m-nj' and "e-f-g-h-i" plus along the Grand View
between "c-e-k-b-l-d"
Conservation Covenant:
3.2.1.5 A conservation covenant, under the Reserves Act
1977, is proposed to afford protection of an area of kanuka shrubland.
This covers approximately 20 hectares and is located in the mid
section of a steep sub-catchment with little soil development.
The topography has protected the shrubland.
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 be freed of the management constraints (direct and indirect) resulting from its tenure under reviewable instrument; and
(b) To enable the protection of signif cant 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 approximately 435 hectares of mainly
shrubland that is considered most suitable for conservation. This
land mostly lies west of Camp Stream with a high content of indigenous
vegetation and is characterised by having a number of sign)ficant
inherent values including providing habitat for the Otago skink.
Nature conservation is considered ecologically sustainable on
this land as the native vegetation is largely intact and it provides
habitat for Otago skink and Grand skink as well as NZ Falcon.
In addition a conservation covenant is proposed for an area of
kanuka shrubland taking in approximately 20 hectares.
The disposal by freehold disposal of approximately 3100 hectares,
subject in part to a Conservation Covenant to protect a small
area of kanuka shrubland comprises areas of cultivated flats and
easy rolling country and the balance improved tussock hill county
rising to 1230 metres asl. A large part of the run has been oversown
in the past but hieracium has encroached onto the tussock hills.
The grazable area is capable of sustaining pastoral farming given
nutrient replenishment from top- dressing and oversowing.
A small area of kanuka shrubland has been protected in the past
by natural features. This area is confined to the steep mid section
of a steep sub-catchment with little soil development. It has
escaped fire and has developed in spite of absence of fences or
natural barriers to stock intrusion and provides an attractive
example of a natural component in an otherwise pastoral landscape.
This form of protection is considered to be a suitable mechanism
to protect the sign)ficant inherent values.
Ecologically sustainable management will be promoted on the area
proposed for freehold disposal to Glenfoyle Limited.by freeing
the land from the management constraints as a result of its tenure
as a pastoral lease and allowing a mix of land management practices
that ensure ecological sustainability. Lower altitude easy contoured
land has been highly developed while the hill country can justify
inputs of fertiliser and oversowing that allow the land to be
more sustainable for fine wool sheep and cattle. Presently goats
are also run.
In terms of the proposal all of the sign)ficant inherent values
will be protected by designating 435 hectares for restoration
to Crown control as conservation area and a small area designated
for disposal but subject to a conservation covenant. If it not
for the proposed farm management easement concession crossing
part of the Camp Creek conservation area it would have been designated
for full Crown ownership and control. As a result the two areas
will be managed for the protection of the conservation values.
The easement concession will provide access to the holder on foot,
with or without implements, guns, farm dogs and farm stock for
farm management purposes. This easement concession will allow
access between areas of land on either side of the proposed conservation
area.
The proposal has two easements designed to provide public access
both through the higher altitude parts of the property as part
of a possible future through route along the Crest of the Grand
View Range and along the same crest route as a means of gaining
access to the proposed Camp Creek conservation area. These easements
provide access on foot, on or accompanied by horses and non- motorised
vehicle.
There is a further easement over part of the farm tracks that
cross through Camp Creek conservation area. As part of the proposal
designated tracks crossing the north west corner and two sections
along the upper western rim of the area are to be surveyed out
and disposed of by freehold disposal to Glenfoyle Limited. Public
access will be limited to foot traffic. Minister of Conservation
management purposes easements will provide access by way of motor
vehicle and on foot both along the crest of the Grand View Range
and over a track from Glenfoyle Road.
APPENDICES
1. Notice of Preliminary Proposal as advertised [at start of this
page]
2. Plan [see below]
3. Farm management easement concession [not provided on this site]
4. Conservation covenant [pdf
260k]
5. Public access easement in
gross "c-e-k-l-d" [pdf 128k]
6. Public access easement "c-e"
and "d-l-k-e" [pdf 140k]
7. Public access easement
`'e-f", "e-m" and "nj" [pdf 140k]
8. Minister of Conservation management purposes easement "a-b-k-e",
"e-mnj" and "e-f-g-h-i" [not provided on this
site]
9. Minister of Conservation management purposes easement in gross
"c-e-k-b-l-d" [not provided on this site]
Related Tenure Review Documents (available from LINZ website)
Scoping Report (pdf 153KB)
Due Diligence Report (pdf 1.19MB)
Conservation resources report (pdf 1.05MB)
Proposed Designations Report [should be available but isn't]
Fish and Game Report (pdf 55.7KB)
Monday, 4 August 2003
Commissioner of Crown Lands
c/-Quotable Value New Zealand Ltd
P O Box 13 443
Christchurch
Fax (03) 341 1635
The design of the boundaries means that the conservation area CA1 will have little public appeal. It would be very difficult to traverse through it to view its internal features. There has been no landscape consideration in the selection of boundaries. Complete catchments should be reserved. This would also permit public passage along boundary ridge crests. The whole upper catchment to include Great Rock should be reserved. DOC described a significant area around Great Rock as having "Chionochloa rigida grasslands of moderate stature and native diversity". Just because DOC doesn't want this area isn't reason for lack of protection. The Crown is obliged to fulfil the objects of the Crown Pastoral Land Act. Only that area considered "most suitable for conservation" is reserved. DOC rejects higher altitude areas because they "don't include areas of high inherent value (Proposed Designations Report at 4.2.81. Whereas the objects of the CPLA are to enable the protection of "significant inherent values". That obligation is not met by merely protecting the most significant areas (our emphasis).
The conservation area is only to be in Crown ownership. It would be under full Crown ownership and control if not for access tracks through the area being proposed for freehold status. The first designations report proposed full Crown ownership and control. We believe that having freehold access tracks through a conservation area is a messy arrangement that sets bad precedent for other tenure reviews. It should be possible to grant easements or concessions for farm vehicle passage etc, in the same manner as for easement 'f-j'.
This proposal leads to the situation of having to create easements for public passage "through" a conservation area, with a consequentially ridiculous provision dealing with "trespassing" off the freehold tracks onto a conservation area (Appendix 7 at 8.1.5).
We agree that it is strategically important that provision is made for this access route, but we question the adequacy of easements, and the necessity for overlapping easements in gross and appurtenant to the conservation area, and the terms of such easements. We agree that use should be confined to foot, horse and cycle.
Utalisation of this route depends on connection to further such provisions through adjoining properties. If no such provision is made then this access will provide no access at all, and hence would be a failure to fulfil the CPLA requirement to "secure public access and enjoyment of reviewable land" (section 24 (c)(i).
The objects of Part 2 of the CPLA include a duty under section 24(c)(i), to "secure public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land". 'Securing' entails more than passive or inadequate provision of public 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 mechanisms' in the form of public easements pursuant to section 80 CPLA and section 7(2) Conservation Act fail 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 documents-
Exclusion of schedules.
Whilst the Ninth Schedule of the Property Law Act 1952 is expressly
excluded from the terms of the easements, section 126G of that
Act is not. Section 126G allows modification or extinguishment
of easements through the courts, at the initiative of either parties
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.
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".
The total absence of any cited legal authorities for closure is of great concern. If there are lawful powers of closure applicable they must be expressly 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 and reserves to public recreation exist, these should be directly exercised over such areas, 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 the land it administers.
Dispute resolution.
Despite the "Transferee" being defined to include "any
member of the public", there are no provisions 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 being held
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.
Another 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. This is in marked contrast to the protections and certain rights afforded by public roads which are wholly public property.
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 control
Inherent values are confined to natural resources or historic places-
Section 2 Interpretation-
"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:
"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:
Therefore 'natural resource' cannot be extended to mean recreational attributes or desires such as public access in the absence of natural resources. The land comprising the proposed easement areas are proposed for freeholding, presumably because there are insufficient inherent values to either warrant Crown retention or some form of protective mechanism. There is no suggestion in accompanying official documents for this proposal that any historic values exist within the proposed easement areas. They therefore cannot qualify as a 'natural resource' or 'historic place' "of significant inherent value" to "deserve the protection of management under the Reserves Act 1977 or the Conservation Act 1987".
Cf., Section 2 Interpretation-
"Significant inherent value'", in relation to any land, means 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.
Besides, the land itself is not obtaining "the protection of management" under the Conservation Act, as it remains as freehold and is 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.
We therefore submit that the granting of these 'protective mechanism' for the purpose of public access is ultra vires the powers contained in the CPLA, and must not be implemented.
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 easements.
While it would appear that DOC would 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".
PANZ submits that secure public access must be provided along the crest of the Grand View Range and to the proposed conservation area through designation of strips of land pursuant to section 35(2)(a)(iii) for the specified Crown purpose of "public highway". This road should be dedicated by the Commissioner of Crown Lands as a public highway for foot, horse and cycle passage, with animus dedicandi being fulfilled by public acceptance and use.
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 highway".
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 roads, 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 the currently proposed 'easement areas', but as public roads. This is the only proven means of fulfilling the CPLA's object of "securing public access and enjoyment of reviewable land". The alternatives offered are clearly inadequate.
The unformed Glenfoyle Road is not useless as claimed by DOC (Conservation Resources Report pp18-19) but has potential, with marking and possibly some light formation, for well-graded foot access. The alignment was surveyed and pegged in 1882 (SO 945) along a practical alignment. We do not advocate opening this up to public use unless alternative access on to the range crest cannot be negotiated from the south. If it were to be utalised, we would be amendable to realignment in its lower section so as to maintain the privacy of the homestead area. This would be conditional on any realignment being legal road, in exchange for redundant sections. The latter could be 'stopped' and disposed of to the adjoining owner.
A need for this was raised during the 'Early Warning' meeting but no provision has been made in the Preliminary Proposal.
The Bargour Block was included in the proposed conservation area "for future protected area connectivity" (Proposed Designations Report). We question why such foresight did not extend to future access provision to and from the east. The track along the ridge between Camp and Ram Valley Creeks would provide an ideal route.
The only "alternative access" cited by DOC as a reason for not pursuing the above route is along the Grandview Track which is miles to the north.
The justification for the Grand View Range crest access was to allow future connection when other properties enter tenure review. As the DOC Conservation Resources Report (p 27) states "not taking this opportunity to secure this portion of the route would narrow options for future tenure reviews". Not making provision for a future link directly to the Lindis would forgo similar opportunities. This would allow a low-level crossing and connection onto the range, unlike the Grandview track.
Our preference is for connecting foot, horse, cycle access along the existing track from the eastern corner of the property in the vicinity of 'i', to 'e', or up the leading ridge / southern boundary to join the range crest in the vicinity of Trig Hill.
There are no marginal strips currently laid off within the property. We note on SO 21523 that future provision for marginal strips have been confined to Camp Creek. We seek assurance that marginal strips will be created along all qualifying waterways when freehold title is raised as a consequence of tenure review.
There is no intended marginal strip provision along the Crook Burn. This may qualify with a bed width of an average of 3 metres or more over much of its lower reaches. Although LINZ has disallowed from consideration during tenure review the matter of marginal strips, we believe such direction to be wrong in law. Not to consider marginal strip provision, and the creation of alternative means of access if certain stream beds do not meet the width criterion of the Conservation Act, is a material failure to comply with the objects of the CPLA, in particular section 24(c)(i).
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Researcher & Co- Spokesman