• Rural NZ
• Assistance / Emergencies
• People issues
  • Access
  • Communication
  • Demographics
  • Education
  • e-Government
  • Rural Health
  • Social research
• Profitability
• Research
• Rural Proofing
• SLM Hill Country Erosion Programme
• Community Irrigation Fund
• Stats & forecasts
• Sustainability
• Legislation
• Media Centre
• Publications
• What's New

Christchurch Stakeholder Meeting 30 September 2003

The Russley Hotel, Roydvale Avenue, Christchurch

2pm to 4pm

26 Attended (Federated Farmers, Christchurch Canoe Club, Environment Canterbury, DOC, Kayak Club, 4WD, Forest and Bird, Canterbury Tramping Club, Banks Peninsula Tramping Club, Canterbury Salmon Fishers, New Zealand Alpine Club)

Commentary

· There is a legal opinion that an annotation that says `subject to section 58 of the Land Act' or the Conservation Act equivalent means that the statement is not legally applicable.

· John Acland: An access agency needs fire in its belly.

· Tenure review is a good model for access.

· Reference to access to Northland beaches and the rivers around Taupo.

· We need to look at the big picture.

· This is not just about walking access, but 4WD access, etc.

· Do not `reinvent the wheel'.

· Consider the British system of rights of way.

· The English code needs to be manipulated to suit New Zealand conditions.

·  AMF rights are a problem that needs to be sorted out.

· Only 231 submissions were received, this is a relatively low number, so was John Acland startled?

· John Acland: He was not surprised.

· Attitudes are changing.

· The Group heard from people being excluded from access, for example, Mt Peel.

· This is a very readable and rational report, in contrast with the foreshore and seabed report.

· How do the two fit together?

· John Acland: We are looking at access, not ownership.

· Implementing access through the tenure review model is not adequate.

· The paper road situation needs to be rationalised in order to have progress.

· Forest and Bird: This is a very good report and good leadership by John Acland.

· There is a problem with 4WD access (e.g., at Loch Katrine) because it compromises conservation values (aggressive drivers).

· The public roads around the necklace lakes behind Lake Coleridge need to be made into conservation land.

· Bear in mind conservation values.

· Why is this limited to walking access only?

· John Acland: Walking access is enough to work on, a manageable task.

· NZAC (Richard Wesley): Why should there be a separate access agency, rather than using DOC or LINZ?

· John Acland: Many people are very critical of DOC and want a completely independent agency.

· Would people be allowed to carry camping gear?

·  A pack would be allowed, camping, however, would not.

· DOC: When looking at the eight pieces of legislation, perhaps consolidated legislation should be brought in, i.e., pull together the best of the RMA and Conservation Act.

· Legislation could incorporate principles, and clear criteria as to when the rules would apply.

· Brian Hayes: This point was not debated but considered.

· Complexities in adjusting the laws would be too great.

· A 1983 report considered the approach and illustrates the potential complexity.

· An achievement would be to regularise access.

· Fish and Game: Supports an independent access agency.

· There is a premise that access will exist, the question of how and where will be dealt with later.

· Require certainty regarding firearms.

· Where does PANZ fit in?

· Could it be the agency?

· John Acland: Acknowledges the PANZ interest but indicates that it would not be appropriate.

· Has concerns about John Acland's presentation.

· There is no reference to how better access would be serviced.

· Mentions human waste e.g. the Middle Bridge of the Ashley River.

· Farmers are seeking compensation for toilets.

· What is going to be done about this?

· John Acland: If the Government wants more access, more funding will be needed.

· A code of conduct is necessary.

· How can access be re-established to riverbeds with locked gates?

· Why does the Government need to get involved in such a situation?

· People need to go to local councils to get a response to this.

· Why should the lock go on in the first place?

· Forest and Bird: Could agree to do away with unformed legal roads, so long as foot access is guaranteed.

· Fish and Game: The report meets most of Fish and Game's objectives and its members, who are ordinary New Zealanders.

· Tourists etc need additional help to get access to the countryside.

· It would be good to have an agency to represent the public at large.

· Did the Group consider roads not on public land but used with Crown money?

· Waste is largely a roadside issue, not a backcountry one.

· Disagree with Forest and Bird - do not need a nebulous concept to replace legal roads.

· Observation about the pressure on farmers.

· A club can obtain access for years, with ongoing contact, whereas individuals may not obtain such access.

· Could a contestable fund be established to create accessways?

· An agency could use Landcare Trusts to create Access Trusts.

· Another person likes the idea of a statutory trust, to keep the concept constant.

· Any agency would need teeth.

· Access should be moveable.

· Accurate information is essential, as well as a need to work with communities.

· Can I charge or fine a user who does something averse on a walkway (or anywhere?)

· Security is a problem.

· Need well-defined and well-marked accessways.

· They could be negotiated.

· Urbanised people need information on where to go and on how to behave.

· Surprised that the Group needed to consider Maori access to customary areas and use of the land.

· It is easier for Maori to access resources on private land rather than on public land.

· A code of conduct needs some teeth, to be enforceable.

· Could a landowner issue an instant fine?

· Environment Canterbury: Generally supports access, genuinely engage the community.

· Fish and Game: The number of requests generally supports the process.

· Once access is formalised, the pressure would reduce.

· Regarding a statutory trust, how would the priorities be worked out, considering access v. land use?

· How could the situation be formalised?

· If walkways were all public, then people would not have to ask for permission.

· In the United Kingdom, a walkway is two metres wide.

· The width could vary.

Contact for Enquiries

Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND

Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person