Analysis of Written Submissions on the Report Walking Access in the New Zealand Outdoors
8 Access to Public Land
Key points made in submissions
• Many submitters consider that the amount of land in public ownership is extensive, but they feel that this resource is being under-utilised because there is no access to it.
• Many submitters express concern that there has been a perceived lack of support from local authorities in assisting the public to exercise their access rights.
• While the Department of Conservation has been given responsibilities for access, some submitters feel that its promotion of walkways and access to public land is poor.
• Some submitters assert that the enhancement and protection of public roads would result in improved access.
Background from the report
Public land encompasses over 30 percent of New Zealand’s land area. A large proportion of it is available for walking access. Public land may be administered at a central government level (e.g., national parks, conservation parks, reserves and marginal strips) or at a local government level (e.g., regional parks, recreational reserves, esplanade reserves and roads). The Group also received comments that an important part of retaining and protecting the Queen’s Chain is requiring access across private land to get to it. If access is not possible then the value of the Queen’s Chain is diminished.
Legal and practical access to public land can vary significantly, and is affected by the following factors: the degree of formation of public roads (unformed roads that cross private land may be obstructed or not well defined); public land may be landlocked by private land and permission required from the adjacent landholder(s); or physical changes to rivers or the coastline means that legal access is now through a water body or across private land. (Page 62)
8.1 Publicly-owned land
Many submitters who consider that the amount of land in public ownership is extensive feel that this resource is not being taken advantage of as there is a lack of access to it. Most of these submitters state that where public land is available, reasonable access to it should be a basic requirement. Many submitters refer to the report, which notes that 30 percent of New Zealand’s land area is in public ownership, one of the highest percentages of public ownership in the world. There is, therefore, in the view of some submitters, considerable scope to further improve public walking access to the natural environment within these publicly-owned lands. These submitters feel that public reserves are not being managed correctly by local authorities and departments.
Some landholder submitters consider that options for enhancing recreational opportunities on public land be explored before access onto private property is reviewed.
“New Zealand has more public land per capita than anywhere else in the world, so there would not seem to be a need to increase the area available. I feel that much better use could be made of the existing resources”.
“There is presently 30 percent of land area in New Zealand that is publicly owned. Much of this land has considerable access restrictions. If there is a need for greater outdoor access this is where it should come from.”
The concern for some landholders adjoining public land is that access to public land for a specific activity could develop into a general right of access, not necessarily for any specific purpose. For private land there would need to be a strict emphasis that the right was for transit only and that right on that land differed from the area to which a user was going.
8.2 Role of local authorities
Many submitters believe that local authorities are an impediment to realising the potential of access. Some user submitters state that local authorities find it difficult to act for the public in the face of pressure from private interests. These submitters note that local authorities appear unwilling to resolve access issues, especially in regard to the use of unformed roads.
“I believe, with strong basis in direct experience, that local authorities could and should play a much more positive role in promoting and publicising access possibilities […] If the existence of legal roads were clearly known, and councils ensured that there were no obstructions to access across roads, this may relieve some of the current pressures on private landowners, as well as on people who seek access without knowing where they should and shouldn’t go.”
“[A] lack of action by district councils to promote and enforce existing access rights”.
“The onus for defining and marking the exact location of [unformed or abandoned roads and riparian strips] should not lie with the user, but with either the local authority or government department in consultation with the adjacent landholder(s).”
Submitters consider that local authorities must actively prevent the unlawful closure or blockage of these roads. A few submitters suggest that local authorities be made to comply with the current law regarding public roads, preventing their blockage by erecting fences or any other structure. A few submitters suggest that councils could assist landholders who provide access by contributing to fencing and planting costs and addressing health and safety risks.
“The Land Access Report notes a number of overlaps and functioning difficulties with existing access legislation that may effect Council’s ability to adequately provide for future demands. The Council therefore considers that it is a matter of importance that these conflicts are resolved.”
One submitter states that clarification of the responsibilities of local authorities may involve costs to those authorities. Another submitter notes that local authorities have the right to close up or prohibit access, yet private landholders are expected not to.
One council considers that any activities of an access agency will raise public expectation and awareness of their rights to access unformed roads and marginal strips along waterways without giving adequate attention and resourcing to the issues or conflict that this may create.
“Council considers […] that the small amount of public good to be gained from promoting the location of [unformed roads and marginal strips along waterways] will be overshadowed by the problems of trespass, spooking of stock, problems with dogs, disruption to farming operations, crime (such as shooting, poisoning and theft of stock), safety issues and the inevitable backlash to come from rural landholders.”
A council considers that initiatives to promote further access to open spaces using unformed roads are fraught. This council notes that an issue of road stopping can be referred to the Environment Court.
“A negotiated solution […] where the paper road could be stopped in return for an alternative strip of land on the farm may be impractical given the development of the farm or its geography. In Council’s experience this method may not be acceptable to the occasional users of the paper road, and the issue may end up referred to the Environment Court anyway. The issue becomes wider than simply one of negotiation between the landholder and Council. The risk of litigation from attempting to do something positive for all parties is high. Stopping roads is an increasingly public issue. Council is hesitant to unnecessarily expose itself to this conflict.”
8.3 Department of Conservation
While DOC has been given responsibilities for access, many submitters feel that its promotion of walkways is poor and that it hinders public access to public land. With limited funds and many conservation issues to deal with, some submitters consider that DOC does not accord walkways the attention that they deserve.
“We would like to bring to the committee’s attention that tracks and routes are being lost (in the Conservation estate) due to mismanagement of funds by the Department of Conservation – this is badly affecting access to the backcountry. Simple backcountry tracks and facilities (ie. Huts) are being lost either [through] neglect (lack of maintenance) or inappropriate “upgrading” to an inappropriate standard (sometimes contravening DOC’s own Track Service Standards”.
“Even DOC appears to have forgotten, if not ignored their obligation to maintain and manage the recreational aspect of the land assigned to them to manage. Rather they have treated the estate as if they owned it and desire to exclude the true owners. From a recreation perspective it would be very hard to support DOC being in charge of access issues for New Zealand, as they have to date shown nothing but incompetence in this regard. If they were liable for damage [to] vehicles and personal injury I am sure with their current mentality they would excuse themselves liability by removing all vehicle access and possible even go as far as removing all tracks so the public being the true owners cannot enter.”
One submitter states that walkways are falling into disuse due to a lack of advertising by DOC, which does not continue the practice of announcing the re-opening of walkways. Most of these submitters feel that DOC’s responsibility for the New Zealand Walkways Act should be transferred to another department or organisation that can give it greater priority.
“The Department of Conservation is often reluctant to help meet the costs if it involves expenditure on land outside the conservation estate, ie the road leading to a DoC reserve.”
“DOC [does] not maintain the […] walkway in our opinion to a reasonable standard, we pay for all tracking on the walkway each year. Everytime we ask for a financial contribution…they say ‘we have no money’ […] I am collecting incidents on DOC’s arrogance and mis-management, over time I will have the walkway disbanded and manage it via a community trust. Beware of DOC they do not deliver on promises.”
A few user submitters refer to the ability of DOC to require a concession for access to publicly administered lands. Some submitters do not consider that DOC should be able to charge the public to cross its conservation estate simply for fishing access (although DOC concessions do not exclude the public). Landholder submitters also question the right of DOC to charge a fee for access when this is not required for access onto private land.
“The charging for access and exclusivity of access is invidious and damaging to the cause of widespread public access. The Department of Conservation charges concessions for use of the public estate for commercial use, this gives incentive to them to allow concessions and sets a precedent. We believe strongly that DOC should not be allowed to charge concessions instead only allowing them if the commercial activity will not interfere with conservation and private users.”
“The Reference Group acknowledges that the Department of Conservation has increasingly moved to cost recover some recreational use of public land. It would be illogical and hypocritical if Government were to regulate to prevent private landowners from doing the same thing.”
A few submitters consider that DOC is performing well in relation to recreation.
“DOC has done a wonderful job of opening up the national parks.”
“I think [that the DOC managed parks are wonderfully maintained in general and signage also is very good.”
8.4 Public roads
Some submitters assert that public roads provide a valuable tool for extending public access to the countryside. Some submitters state that it should be a requirement of local authorities to affirm public rights along formed and unformed roads. Some submitters suggest that new accessways should be provided if existing roads to public lands are inadequate rather than relying on the goodwill of landholders to provide alternative access. Many submitters feel that the network of legal roads should be identified and publicised.
A few submitters consider that unformed roads allowing access across farms should be removed from maps. One submitter expresses concern that public expectation regarding access to unformed roads will be raised following the establishment of an access agency.
“Council is extremely concerned that the activities of the Access Agency will raise public expectation and awareness of their rights to access unformed paper roads and waterway marginal strips without giving adequate attention and resourcing to the issues or conflict this will inevitably create […] This should not be undertaken until the tools and policy development are in place to resolve the conflict between public expectation of access, and pre-existing private land management rights.”
“[Public roads] are an ideal mechanism to ensure access and perhaps an extension of the current network should be considered as a means of solving the problem nationwide.”
“Access could be enhanced by full utilising paper roads, public land etc.”
Some councils state that decisions on access, in particular road closure, need to be taken strategically.
“Agree [that] the legal road situation is haphazard and could be rationalized with landowners in many cases. This could happen when landowners apply to have road[s] stopped or where Council has identified a benefit in creating esplanade reserve[s] for public access and there is an opportunity to use unformed legal road[s] on the property as part of the negotiation process. However, we would also note that the current process of stopping legal road[s] carried out by local authorities often occurs without full consideration of the full spectrum of potential issues, including access, conservation, heritage issues etc. Again, this highlights the need for an “Access Strategy” to make sure decisions on road closure are taken strategically rather than on a case by case basis.”
A few submitters add that there should not be any closure of unformed roads without due process.
“The Club is acutely nervous of the proposal that legal roads be considered as currency in trading to secure foot access. Through this process, legal entities that have value for all forms of recreation could potentially be exchanged to secure limited access for just one mode of access.”
“I object very strongly to [the use of unformed legal roads as leverage for access, closing them in certain areas and in others re-forming them for walking or bike access only]. If this option is to be considered then it must not be done in isolation and there should be consideration given to the needs of responsible recreation four wheel drive users.”
Contact for Enquiries
Mark Neeson
Manager, Land and Water Policy
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526, Wellington
Phone: +64 894 0703
Fax: +64 4 894 0745
