Cromwell Public Meeting 14 October 2003
Golden Gate Lodge, Barry Avenue
5pm to 7pm
60 Attended
Commentary
· Existing marginal strips are not moveable, so why not make all marginal strips, road reserves and esplanade reserves moveable?
· District councils appear to have been lax in enforcing RMA obligations - did the Group look at their role?
· District councils are willing to take contributions to reserves rather than the land.
· Property rights cannot be encapsulated in the overheads.
- It is a direct attack on property rights.
- Quote from the report.
- Some of the report is sound and appropriate.
- Opposed to Maori land being dealt with separately - this is `utterly inappropriate', a `colour ethic'.
- Likes concept of a body being set up to negotiate access where it is needed.
- Property rights are a contract.
- Report will be used as a platform for something else, e.g. access to PNAs.
- The exercise is an attack on property rights.
· Question for Gerry Eckhoff about public property rights: why isn't he defensive and emotive about public property e.g. water allocation?
- Why shouldn't the public be so defensive?
- There should be some ground to give.
· How are anglers ever going to get a property right?
- Wants the Government to recognise that the situation is grey and that the public is very interested.
- Access needs to be granted across pastoral land that is free hold.
· Mining: Access to stake out claims.
- Have the rules around access for minerals been looked at?
· Most landowners are generous in giving permission for access, but sees this as being whittled away, yet would oppose the right to roam.
- Would like to see access for the future.
- Why does it need to be a chain wide?
· Belief that Maori are privileged.
· The Queen's Chain is not negotiable by anglers and fishermen.
- Never had access problems in Central Otago.
- Government changes the ground rules.
- Why is the Government doing this?
- Subdivision in rural areas is changing access.
- Safari.
- There should be a flexible Queen's Chain over all waterways in New Zealand as a bottom line.
· Why not have an access commissioner?
· Responsibility of the public if they want access.
· An easement might be better - councils do not want to buy the land - because it will not mean selling the land.
· Would oppose public access to every waterway but would support the original concept - what is an appropriate river?
· The role of LINZ and DOC in reviewing submissions and the report to the Minister.
· Role of education.
· Role of negotiation; signage paid by the local authorities, including what people can and cannot do.
- There is a bigger mix of people who are not the traditional outdoor users.
- Most recreational users are not interested in seizing property rights.
· There is a cost to public access.
- The report does not discuss cost - should be an arrival tax (a `green tax').
· Could do with better information on access rights - better mapping.
· Esplanade reserves etc: Need to keep what we have and not let it erode but do not rush to form new ones.
· How is DOC going to get access to conservation land that is surrounded by freehold land?
· The problem is how to control the irresponsible person, not the responsible ones.
- Personal security, the report needs to address this issue.
· Rod and Gun club has introduced a membership card that has helped gain access.
· Concept of strategy is important, cost is important.
· Fire risk.
· What about cross-country skiing and mountain bikes?
· Huge obstacle to the public obtaining access to information; certainty of information; where they can go; and identification are very important.
· New technology can help people find their way around.
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
