Dunedin Stakeholder Meeting No 2, 13 October 2003
Southern Cross Hotel, Cnr Princess and High Street
2pm to 4pm
23 Attended (Federated Farmers, NZAC, Dunedin Fish and Game, landowners, Freshwater Anglers, PANZ, High Country Trustees, Clutha District Council - Resource Management Consultant, Dunedin City Council, City Forests Ltd)
Commentary
· Has DOC been involved in the process?
· Need to shed clarity on the term `Queen's Chain', as the component parts do have a legal basis.
· The report creates a new property right by proposing to take away a right of deciding who goes on the landowner's land.
- The Crown should clarify where current access is and then prioritise to fill in the gaps.
- Councils should seek to place esplanade reserves on subdivisions.
- The Government should put up money along the lines of a nature heritage fund or the QEII Trust.
- Priorities landcare trusts and local authorities.
· Seek strengthening of provisions for esplanade reserve leadership in the RMA.
- A subsequent landowner can seek reduction if they can show/argue a change in circumstances.
- Encroachments on esplanade reserves affect access and people are unclear where they can go.
· RMA provisions are very ad hoc.
- Compensation is a major issue.
- Councils do not have the money and waive or reduce the width of esplanade strips and reserves.
· Traditional accessways are being locked up, but road reserves do exist and provide a good resource.
- Local councils do not see public access as their area.
- 'Roading' to them is vehicle access, yet unformed roads are highly strategic.
· Esplanade reserves need to be moveable.
· The legal process of closing roads needs to be made simpler if there is to be any value in using them in a strategic sense.
· Lambing?
· If you rely on subdivision to solve the access question, it will take too long.
- It is too legal and has considerable cost for local authorities.
- Compensation should come from a national pool.
· How would landowners be indemnified from fire etc, how could they be compensated?
- Closure of access due to fire?
· Councils need resources on the ground.
· Why only walking?
- Need to include mountain biking, large recreation area.
- Dunedin City Council will oppose the closure of unformed legal roads unless other access arrangements can be guaranteed.
· Need to recognise the day to day issues of farmers: OSH, stock getting loose, fear of legal implications of the unknown has affected willingness to give access.
· Need for a large education system to support new arrangements.
· Need to give further consideration to vehicle, mountain bike access (as per the report), and hunting along riverbanks.
· The `deeming' concept might be too grey to provide the certainty that the Reference Group argues for.
· Vehicle access is a difficult issue - if there is to be vehicle access, it has to be by negotiation and expect to pay.
· Farm management: If farmers are losing grazing and access to waterways, who will manage the riparian lands for weeds and pests (gorse, broom, rabbits, and possums)?
· The issue of cost is a key matter, especially for small local authorities, who cannot afford compensation.
- Who is going to pay?
· Proposal of a trust or similar organisation which farmers and others could join and run.
- The purpose of the trust would be to promote town/country relationships, such as access, education.
- Farmers might pay $300, town $30 per annum.
- There could be other benefits of membership such as accommodation availability.
- Funding could be sought to assist access.
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
