http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/south-island/4006885/DOC-mulls-ceding-200ha-for-field#comments
What do readers think?
Forest & Bird » High Country
For Sale Craigieburn Conservation Park to Aussie Ski Resort Developers?
(36 posts)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Hon. Kate Wilkinson
Minister of ConservationDear Ms. Wilkinson,
Proposal by Blackfish Limited
The Canterbury-Aoraki Conservation Board has been asked by the Canterbury conservancy to comment on a proposal put forward by Blackfish Limited (the proposers) pursuant to Section 16A of the Conservation Act 1987.
The board first received information on the proposal on Monday 19th July and has been given until August 6th to comment. We note that the proposal was received by the conservancy on the 18th of May this year.
Commercial background
• The proposers acquired Porter Heights Ski Area Limited and a leasehold interest in 708 ha of conservation land in 2006 (OIO 200620086). At that time the company was 63% Australian-owned and 37% New Zealand-owned. The present situation is similar, with 65% of shares owned by Blackfish Pty Limited of New South Wales. The company's intention was to develop visitor accommodation adjacent to the slopes.
• In 2009 the proposers sought and purchased 15ha of land adjoining Lords Bush and this was exchanged for 22ha above the Porter River as the site of an 'alpine village.' At that time, it is the board's subsequent understanding, there was an informal agreement that the department would allow a concession for skiing in Crystal Basin.
• The present proposal is for the exchange of part of the leasehold land acquired in 2006 – 321ha of the Upper Porter Valley and 56ha of the Crystal Stream area – for a freehold interest in 178ha of Crystal Basin and 22ha of a terrace above the Porter River.
• The areas of Crystal Basin and terrace which the proposers wish to freehold were purchased by the Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) from Castle Hill Station (DoC 2002) because of its outstanding conservation values. It is part of a Canterbury Outstanding Natural Landscape (ONL), as shown in the August 2010 Boffa Miskell Canterbury Landscape Review. Currently the land is designated stewardship land because it has not, as yet, been gazetted.
Legal context
• Core principles for NHF case consideration of natural areas are that national protection criteria must be met and that the natural area is sought for permanent and legally enforceable protection. The NHF does not fund proposals for legal protection that is not permanent. A Department of Conservation 2004 undertaking of permanent legal protection, in its successful application for funding of the ex-Castle Hill Station land, would be breached, were this land alienated.
• The Conservation Act (16A(2)) calls for a conservation advantage in the exchange context claimed by Blackfish: 'The Minister shall not authorise any such exchange unless the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the local Conservation Board, that the exchange will enhance the conservation values of land managed by the Department and promote the purposes of this Act.'
• However, the context Blackfish claim to be operating in is questionable. Does the surrender of a lease empower that side of an 'exchange' sufficiently to enable real participation in an actual exchange? There is cause for uncertainty.
• There may be pertinence in the case of Buller Electricity Ltd v A-G (1995) 3 NZLR 344, in which economic and social benefits arising from an enterprise were deemed irrelevant to the consideration of stewardship land for disposal to that enterprise. If land is considered necessary for conservation purposes, then it should remain with the department. As the ex-Castle Hill Station land was recently sought by and transferred to the department by the NHF for such purposes, it should be concluded that those purposes remain. Section 16A(2) should be seen as referring to net conservation values; departure from this view could set a precedent within DoC.
Documentation provided
The board has received the following documents in relation to the proposal: from the proposers, by Boffa Miskell, Proposed Land Exchange, Supporting Ecological Assessment and from the department, Assessment of Ecological Values, Review of Freshwater Information, Comments on Porters Crystal Basin Invertebrate Values, Recreation Values Report, Area Management Comment, Historic Values Report and Assessment of Options for (proposed) Trust Fund.
Time and seasonal restrictions mean that the departmental staff's reports are based on previously-acquired knowledge and desktop summaries only. The pressures applied have been described as 'commercial reality.' What can be taken from all the reports, however, is that:
• Crystal Basin is of high conservation value in terms of its position, geomorphology and biodiversity.
• the basin is in a natural and pristine state.
• the area has considerable recreation value.
• the basin is a particularly significant refuge for Canterbury galaxias (it should be noted that this refuge has already been compromised to some extent by ski area contractors lowering a culvert in February of this year).
• the proposal would create an island of private land in an otherwise coherent and contiguous conservation area flanking the Waimakariri Basin.
Further requirements
The usual protocols supporting willing, fully-informed and unharried participants through a transaction are not being observed well in this case. Necessary for an appropriate decision are:
• more time for departmental staff to make full, professional judgements about the land's values.
• an assessment of the proposed development's effects on all conservation values. The proposal includes a dam, access road, gondolas, ski lifts and a slope modification that would affect one third of Crystal basin.
• an unrushed assessment of the proposer's market demand judgements.
• legal advice from the department.
• an assessment of the potential impact of climate change on such a ski area.
• time for the NHF committee to make unhurried comment. Aside from the question about the future of the agreement to protect, Crystal Valley's significance needs consideration; it is part of an ONL. The Resource Management Act sees these as of national importance and requires that they be protected from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
• time to research the serious implications of trading freehold interest in such land.
Conservation values
It is certain that the net conservation values of Crystal Basin are high.
• The department's Assessment of Ecological Values describes it as in 'original condition', 'an excellent example of an alpine cirque basin ecosystem,' and agrees with Boffa Miskell's judgement that it is 'close to “pristine.”'
• Statements from the department's report on invertebrate fauna include: 'Crystal Basin supports an unbroken and unmodified altitudinal sequence of ecological habitats'... it is 'important to retain the Craigieburn Range as an ecological and public asset.'
• The report on recreation values for the department acknowledges that benefits would come with Blackfish's development, but cites a range of drawbacks, concluding that 'risks associated with the proposed freehold land are significant.'
The proposal appears opportunistic and, though claiming conservation advantages, mostly in the interest of the business' self-preservation.
• There is significant potential public relations leverage in Blackfish's recruitment of the attractive but already-supported kiwi; the proposed restoration programme does not reflect informed conservation prioritising.
• If there is veracity in Blackfish's market demand assessments, the near-saturation levels of activity could have a strong impact on the conservation values of the area and have substantial negative flow-on effects.
• The department, as it had proposed, assumed responsibility for protection of the Porter River upon the success of its application for the ex-Castle Hill Station land, yet there is an unfortunate likelihood that the river could be degraded with such levels of human presence and activity above it.
• The breakdown of the galaxia protection occurred at a quiet time for Porters, due to the knowing actions of an informed operator. Adequate management of conservation issues in a much-expanded scenario would seem uncertain.
Precedent-setting potential
• The professional worth and integrity of the highly-qualified staff who have commented on the proposal would be weakened were it to proceed.
• 'Commercial reality' belongs to all parties in a transaction and oughtn't to be dictated by just one. The department would benefit from being known as a particular and capable negotiator.
• Were the proposal accepted, other holders of ski leases in the area would likely feel commercial pressure and could opt to pursue a similar course. There are implications for resource management and for much of the ONL area.
• To accept Blackfish's largely own-terms proposal could be seen as marginalising the terms of reference and actions of the NHF in favour of an overseas company whose self-stated present lack of viability (see Blackfish's own economic assessment) appears to be the motivation for this proposal. The fund's ongoing activities could be compromised.
• The proposers have stated that they cannot get investment funds for the development without freehold for the land in question. The board is of the mind that the department ought not to trade away conservation land purchased for that purpose by the NHF using public money. The issue of investment funding is, as always, for the proposers, not the department, to address.
• It is difficult to see a gain for net conservation values in this project. To complete a transaction that leads to a conservation deficit could be to invite more, similar, proposals; selectively engaging with ideas that show clear conservation benefits would be preferable.
Recommendation
The board recommends that the proposal in its current form be declined and that the proposers be invited to reapply under Part 3B of the Conservation Act. Any new application should take account of the points made in this document and include conservation oversight.
In making this recommendation the board has referred to the Conservation Act 1987 and the present Statement of Intent. The board is aware of current economic imperatives and has taken these into account in making this recommendation.
Yours sincerely,
Canterbury-Aoraki Conservation Board.
4 August 2010.
Posted 1 year ago # -
CRYSTAL BASIN AND CRYSTAL VALLEY-CRAIGIEBURN CONSERVATION PARK
We are all very concerned about "possible" mining on Schedule 4 land set aside for conservation.
However rather than "possible" destruction of conservation land, DOC is about to decide on an application to destroy for a skifield and sewage waste scheme, 200 hectares of conservation land designated for total protection in the Craigieburn Conservation Park.
The omens are not good. DOC's leaders seem determined to prove that they can mix it with the business sector. They will likely then want to support (Australian owned) Porter's skifield businesses interests ahead of DOC's legal committment to protect this area. The Canterbury DOC Conservator has already signalled this very strongly to the local Conservation Board and to his staff.
"The Press" reports today (18 August) that DOC expects to make their decision this week and the Skifield developer is in the paper almost daily championing his case. Today he was announcing a bribe of $150,000 he is pledging to "save" Arthur's Pass National Park Great Spotted Kiwi (GSK) by stealing eggs from the parents in a very questionable incubation programme. DOC's kiwi scientists have already responded by pointing out that his proposal is scientifically questionabl, of low priority and that GSK's have a great range of higher "in situ" conservation priorities.
In 2004 the Nature Heritage Fund (NHF), of which I am a member, approved funding of a DOC Canterbury bid seeking around $4million of public conservation funds. They pledged to use the money to permanently legally protect around 9,000hectares of the Castle Hill Pastoral Lease provided we supported their case which involved the purchase of part of the lease. DOC Canterbury was adamant in their application that this land they sought is of national conservation importance. It contains rare dryland plants, representative tussock grasslands and shrublands, unique unmodified ecological sequences from the valley floor of the Castle Hill Basin to the summit of the Craigieburn Range. The Conservation Minister in 2004 approved this purchase so the protection of this area became government policy.
Moreover by purchasing the block for conservation, DOC made the point to the NHF that this would complete a continuous protected conservation land link from the Main Divide at Arthur's Pass National Park across the high country drylands of the Craigieburn Conservation Park and the Korowai-Torlesse Tussockland Park to the Canterbury Plains...An extraordinary dryland Park sequence right across the eastern South Island.
The 200 hectares that DOC appear poised to hand to the Australian owned skifield company is being sought as Freehold title. Why? Because the skifield argue it would improve their ability to raise funds for what seems at the outset a very speculative venture.
Their fundraising ability (or lack of it) is frankly nothing to do with the protection or management of conservation land. It is their problem not the people of New Zealand's.
How can this be happening? DOC undertook to the NHF and the Government that the land would forever be protected as Craigieburn Conservation Park. They didn't promise to look after it only until they had a better offer from a neighbour!
If the land is freeholded to the developer and turned into a playground and a sewage works for what the developer says is a village for 3,500 people, the unmodified natural valley to mountain crest altitude sequence that 6 years ago was considered so important will be permanently destroyed. The protected natural link between the Main Divide and the Canterbury Plains will be severed forever. The unique plants and natural stream systems considered so imprtant 6 years ago will be wrecked.
Equally seriously what sort of appaling precedent does this set for every other piece of conservation land in New Zealand?
It is worth remembering that this is a Conservation Department decision and that it is their's alone. It isn't the Minister's. It isn't Cabinet's. It isn't Minister Gerry Brownlee's or his MInistry of Economic Development.
If DOC approve the freeholding of this 200hectares of land pledged by them for total permanent protection, in future they could do anything, anywhere and no conservation land will be safe.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Crystal Basin Protected Land Freeholding
Majority Australian-owned company Porters wants Selwyn District Plan "Outstanding Natural Landscape" status removed from 200 hectares of fully protected public natural land (Press 21 August). In 2004, with widespread public support, Crystal Basin and lower east Crystal Stream were purchased for addition to the Craigieburn Forest Park by the Government's Nature Heritage Fund (NHF).
In its 2004 NHF funding application, the Department of Conservation said that the Porter River to Craigieburn Range ecologically unmodified altitude sequence was of national importance. They advised that protection of Crystal Stream permanently safeguarded the only corridor of protected public land linking the Craigieburn Forest Park and the Korowai-Torlesse Tussockland Park. This created Canterbury’s only continuous link of protected land from the Main Divide to the Canterbury Plains. DOC also advised that the Porter River was "the most important freshwater habitat" in the Castle Hill area. In exchange for NHF funding in 2001, DOC promised to permanently protect this land.
Porters now want to freehold this public protected land so it can expand its skifield and build a sewage disposal scheme here. DOC and Selwyn District must say no.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Forest and Bird has written to the Director General of the Department of Conservation, Al Morrison stating its concern over this land swap. We have asked him to put this out to public consultation - to see the letter go here
And here's a more general news item -
http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/news/porter-heights-skifield-on-slippery-slope
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hey
I have been very frustrated with the way the McKenzie country campaign has been conducted. Forest and Bird has been too "hysterical" (I know this is a debated word) for my taste. Emotive pleas clearly took precedence to scientific arguments...and reality. Claims of the "pristine" McKenzie country grated on me, and I felt an opportunity to negotiate some good outcomes for conservation was lost.....
This bad taste returned when I read similar statements in the brief information on Chrystal stream we are invited to comment on.
Firstly, I would express my concern at any attempt to rush this process through without proper consultation, but secondly the proposal in itself sounds interesting and worthy of investigation, this area is mostly hidden away from the panoramas of the Castle Hill Basin, the land footprint isn't large and another ski-field would get more people out in the hills, exulting in the beauty of nature, and create a whole lot of new jobs.
Balancing off against required earthworks the conservation spin-offs if channelled wisely (not the crazy GSK project mentioned), could rejuvenate the Castle Hill area which is chronically short of funds. For example it would be fantastic to see an appropriate pest control and revegetation programme begun to rehabilitate the landscape of Kura Tawhiti.
These majestic rocks that inspire spirituality, are a scenic, aesthetic and recreational wonderland, and have genuinely unique and threatened biodiversity qualities, could with appropriate resources become a conservation island in a wrecked yet beautiful landscape....but money is needed!
The problem for conservation this century is not people, it is people switching off. It is not enough to lock this land up and throw away the key, we need to get people and money back into the outdoors...
Posted 1 year ago # -
1. The Porters Skifield can do all the expansion it wants on its own leasehold land for which it pays DOC rental. Whether the construction of a 3500 person resort on that land is appropriate is entirely up to the developers, their financiers and the Selwyn District Council who will be required to approve a Plan Change and planning approvals. Everyone will have a different opinion on this proposal and can submit comment to Selwyn District Council.
Many locals actually think it is crazy. The "Alpine Village" site that Porters promoters always show covered in snow was today (24 August) a muddy, shady area with no snow. It had snow on it in mid June that came and went (mostly went) until early August. At most it will have snow on it for a few weeks each winter and less as the climate warms.
If they want to have snow around the "Village" then either they have the wrong site or they will have to make a heap of artificial snow that has an electricity cost of perhaps $1/kg. So much for their stated aims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions!
2. From a public policy perspective, the situation is very different where Porters Skifield covet the adjacent Crystal Stream and Basin protected to be part of the Craigieburn Conservation Park. Everyone who cares about protecting conservation land everywhere in New Zealand should express their views on this.
Porters Skifield want to get freehold title to totally protected conservation land purchased in 2004 by the people of New Zealand and pledged by DOC to be protected in perpetuity.
DOC is engaged in a non public process to sell this conservation land to Porters. That is a disgrace and is almost certainly in breach of the Conservation Act. The Forest and Bird letter to the Director General of Conservation telling him this is excellent.
3. We need to be very cautious about the argument advanced by Jamie S above that 'pest control/ habitat restoration" will be done by this commercial tourism operator somewhere in exchange for getting freehold title to "develop" the fully protected and totally natural Crystal Basin and Stream conservation land. They plan to severely modify the conservation land with sewage works, gondolas, roads, tracks and services for their village. Their argument is a red herring. An identical argument was advanced by Timberlands and their predecessors the Forest Service. They'd road and clearfell or "selectively log" our publicly owned native forest but argue that it was OK because they would do pest control (or at least promise to do this) elsewhere.
We didn't buy the native forest logging argument and we don't buy a similar argument from the majority Australian owned skifield company.
The people of New Zealand are funding pest control and habitat restoration by DOC over large areas of public conservation land including the Castle Hill Basin and Kura Tawhiti. So too are many hard working volunteers. However unlike Porters commercial tourism operators, we volunteers are not asking for payment to do this pest and weed work by being given freehold title to protected public conservation land in exchange.
4. Incidentally in The Press 21 August, the NZ based minority (less than 35%) shareholders of Porters advised that most of them apparently plan to exit the Porters company as soon as possible. They are angling to get the Australians to take over full ownership and fund all the development.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Having read all the posts and F&B releases about the issue at Crystal Valley, and knowing that at the same time F&B has re-opened a lodge at alpine Ruapehu (Whakapapa Village), I would be hesitant to agree that F&B is intent on locking away land and throwing away any keys so much as focussing on the conservation value of the land identified to be swapped. Also the fact of land-swapping in this way, in case it 'sets a precedent' to other swaps of valuable conservation land for commercial developments.
At that point of the argument attention has turned to the conservation value of land which the overseas company wants for developing it's built services on. Does a 3500 person resort need to be built on an area of conservation importance in order to get those people out into the hills?Posted 1 year ago # -
DOC told the media last week that they were going to make decision on the Crystal Valley Freeholding "on August 25".
Here is what one person from the media advised today:
"I spoke to DOC's comms people yesterday and they said a decision has been put off again. It will now be made on Monday(August30). There seems to be a flurry of backroom activity in response to our stories."
I also hope that DOC's delay is because they are taking very seriously the excellent Forest and Bird letter to the DG of DOC warning DOC that the proposal to freehold the Crystal Basin to the dominantly Australian owners is contrary to the Conservation Act.
There is an organistion just set up called "Save our Farms". Perhpas it is time for a new organisation called "Save our Conservation Land"!
Posted 1 year ago # -
A quick reply...
1) I agree entirely that the secrecy/haste of the process is completely inappropriate.
2) I didn't propose that the operator undertakes local conservation work, I proposed that they help fund it, probably as part of their resource consent or as a DOC negotiated outcome.
3) We are talking about a skifield not a quarry (like the unsightly scar the access road goes past), the proposal states that ongoing public access is guaranteed. Overall recreational values are being improved, there are still endless back-country skiing opportunities and club fields in the local vicinity
4) I also think the conservation values of this defined area and the threat to them are being overstated. (I am open to further education on this though)
On the side, whether a 3500 person alpine village is a good idea I sincerely doubt, and I suspect the funding will never materialise, largely for the reasons Tawaki mentions...and despite Tawaki's obvious dislike of Australian companies the fact the existing NZ shareholders are planning on getting out (presumably after freeholding the land and securing the consents) suggests that they are the ones after a quick buck!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Under the Ngai Tahu Settlement Act 1998, DOC does not have the automatic right to sell off to anyone conservation land purchased by the Nature Heritage Fund in 2004 for addition to the Craigieburn Conservation Park.
The Act requires DOC to offer the "right of first refusal" to Ngai Tahu. The 1998 Act recognised the injustices done to Ngai Tahu because the reserves they were promised in their 1848 Treaty settlement were in many cases not set aside or were taken by unscrupulous developers.
One such developer was surveyor Charles Torlesse who took for himself a lot of Ngai Tahu designated reserve land just north of the Waimakariri River. It is ironic that the Tussockland Park next to Crystal Valley bears Charles Torlesse's name while, as a consequence of his unethical actions, Ngai Tahu may now decide the protection or destruction future of the only corridor of conservation land linking the Korowai-Torlesses Tussockland Park with the Craigieburn Conservation Park!
If DOC are frantically trying to persuade Ngai Tahu that they should agree to the Crystal Basin and lower stream being freeholded to the Skifield company it is bad news. It means that DOC have already decided to press ahead with freeholding the conservation land and are now tidying up the details including their obligation to consult with Ngai Tahu.
DOC have told the media that their freeholding decision that was to have been publicly announced on 25 August has now been "delayed until 30 August". Hopefully it means that Ngai Tahu are saying no. Maybe someone in DOC is saying no also. Maybe DOC is listening to the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Boards and the Nature Heritage Fund both of which have opposed the freeholding of this Craigieburn Conservation Park protected land.
Here's hoping.
My concern about the company being majority Australian owned and all the NZ minority owners announcing (Press 21 August) that they plan on getting out fast is that it appears to represent a blatant example of a company attempting to rort the Overseas Investment Regulations. There needs to be some honesty here.
A company soon to be fully foreign owned wants to freehold 200 hectares of fully protected conservation lands. DOC is considering whether to support this through a non public process.
This is a disgrace.
1. The Conservation Parks boundaries and land should be recognised as sacrosanct.
2. Any "exchange" deal should be subject to full public scrutiny and the opportunity for public comment and not negotiated in secret behind DOC's security guarded doors in Hereford Street, Christchurch.
3. The desire by a foreign owned company to purchase conservation land should be subject to the full provisions of the Overseas Investment regulations administered by the Overseas
Investment Office (OIO).Posted 1 year ago # -
Absolutely agree and support your stand Tawaki !! Kia kaha !!
Can we (as F&B supporters) do anything useful before an announcement in a few days?
Would it help to put pressure on the MinCon by emailing her about this ? And other ministers ? The PM ? Local MP ?
Any other parties ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Good idea, Miromiro. I think it would be very worthwhile to email Kate Wilkinson about Crystal Basin. She has listened to convincing conservation arguments before today.
k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nzPosted 1 year ago # -
I think that Miromiro and Ems suggestions are both really important.
k.wilkinson@ministers.govt.nz but also don't forget the Minister of Tourism j.key@ministers.govt.nz
The official decision maker is the DG of DOC Al Morrison amorrison@doc.govt.nz
He needs to get some emails also.
Two very important things happened over the last 24 hours on this issue
1. TV3 last night ran a big publicity story promoting the Crystal Basin being developed for skiing. Lots of ski turns, powder snow and hype. Not a mention that they want freehold title to the whole protected basin or that they want freehold to the protected lands lower down for their sewage scheme. It was just a blatant propoganda for the developers. The developers are urging everyone who likes sking to lobby for freeholding of Crystal Basin. Don't forget that the whole rest of their skifield is on a DOC lease. They could also still ski the Crystal Basin on a DOC lease/concession but are campaigning for freehold title because they think it will look better to their Aussie financiers!
2. We learned today that DOC had virtually turned down the proposal months ago because their investigations showed that legally (Conservation Act) it would be very difficult to proceed with freeholding the protected land for the developer. Then there apparently was extraordinary political pressure on DOC to resurrect the development. Suddenly DOC gave top priority to investigating how they could make the freehold deal happen. Forest and Bird is seeking all the correspondence on this under the OIA but undoubtedly if it becomes available, it will only be after the decision is made.
PLEASE EMAIL YOUR PROTEST NOW BECAUSE THE DOC DECISION IS ONLY DAYS AWAY.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"4) I also think the conservation values of this defined area and the threat to them are being overstated. (I am open to further education on this though)"
Does everyone remember the Government's exact words about the Schedule 4 areas that they wanted to mine. They used words almost identical to Jamie S's above arguing that even though the areas were part of Paparoa National Park they didn't really have National Park ecological values.
The Crystal Basin and Valley is designated for Craigieburn Conservation Park
Jamie's comment that the conservation values of Crystal Basin are being overstated are contradicted by the 2004 DOC ecological report seeking funding from the Nature Heritage Fund Application report and by the 2010 DOC Canterbury DOC Botanist's report on Crystal Valley and Basin supplied to the Conservation Board.
If this was an open public DOC process those reports could easily be made available to Jamie S so he could judge for himself. It isn't so sadly he can't get the details.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, I would certainly enjoy not being so ignorant.
I would encourage everyone thinking about this issue to have a look at a map and look at the area in question. Have a think about what the actual threats are to "conservation" of the proposal, however you define it.
Have a think about whether this area is really "pristine", whether it really has unbroken vegetation associations, whether the proposal really threatens Tawaki's "extraordinary dryland Park sequence right across the eastern South Island." How unique is the area? What about any uniqueness will be compromised?
And please send an email to Al Morrison...I did...
Dear Al,
I am not sure whose fingers are playing you like a puppet, or what your grand strategy for a revolution in conservation looks like, but my observation is that it has little chance of success if you are not open, honest and transparent with the way you chase your goals....
If you are considering granting freehold of part of a conservation area to the developers of Porter Heights skifield, then you need to give those people and organisations that fought to have this area enter the conservation estate, and others who are interested, a voice in the process.
On the substance of the matter I would also ask why freehold is necessary as opposed to leasehold (is there a limited tenure of leases under the Conservation Act, and what is the precedent for this type of arrangement) What weaknesses are perceived in the land ownership models of other currently operating ski-fields?
I tend to think reasonably liberally about conservation, as I perceive weaknesses in the current model. Most places I visit in the conservation estate are empty of people (particularly New Zealanders) to share a hut with, and empty of bird song. I am open to more tourism and job creation in the back country, and people with new ideas about how we can interact with nature. I love to see people actively engaging in their own way with our natural environment.
But by doing things on the sly Al, you will only undermine any new ideas and policy you do have....
Posted 1 year ago # -
I received a nice reply from Al,
"The process for dealing with such matters is set out in legislation and I suggest you aquaint yourself of it before you go accusing me of being a puppet, lacking honesty and transparency, and acting on the sly. Please do not email me again with such offensive, unsubstantiated abuse."
I thought the government would have realised by now that reliance on legislative process alone is not enough when it comes to conservation lands. They need to convince the people who care of the wisdom of their actions.
The puppet strings, or political pressures if you prefer, on DOC are there for all to see. They won't meet these expectations if they follow the Gerry Brownlee school of PR. The worry though is that they are backed into a corner.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well done Jamie. I hope everyone else can write letters too.
Clearly Jamie you have touched a raw nerve. There is huge political pressure on Al Morrison from the politicians who want to hock off the Crystal Valley Conservation Park land as freehold to be a bankable security for the increasingly dodgy sounding development company.
If Coronet Peak, Remarkables and Mt Hutt Skifields can operate successfully and finance themselves on leasehold crown and conservation land there is absolutely no reason why Porters can't ski Crystal Basin on a leasehold concession!
I sympathise with Al Morrison. No body likes being called a puppet.....but probably DOC is also somewhat frustrated because the non public "exchange" deal they are trying to secretly process for Porters very clearly shows that there isn't any nett conservation benefit for conservation from hocking off the beautiful Crystal Basin. Yet such demonstrable benefit is required under the Conservation Act for any 'exchange" to be legal.
DOC knows that Forest and Bird has legal advice on this too and can challenge any decision through the High Court and get DOC's freeholding decision reversed.
The aggressive politicians who are pushing the Conservation Park land freeholding won't care about the niceties of the Conservation Act. If frustrated they will simple seek to change the Act when they can't get what they want.
However as they discovered from their plans to remove key conservation areas from Schedule 4 protection from mining, the NZ public does not support flogging off our conservation lands to foreign owners (or anyone else) for development. These wonderful lands are our National Treasures, our taonga, our heritage.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE MORE LETTERS AND EMAILS AND KEEP EVERYONE POSTED ON THE RESPONSE.
Thanks Jamie.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Having seen Al's reply to Jamie, I'm intrigued now about his response to F&B's letter from Mike Britton (the one Mandy posted above).
But as with the mining issue, lots of public pressure seemed to have a +ve response, so the scene has been set for what we need to do to get feedback. Don't be afraid to write them; after all, they like debating things and hearing from their constituents we were told during the mining issue in particular.Posted 1 year ago # -
It is now August 31.
DOC was to announce its decision about freeholding (the developers call it "limited freeholding" whatever that is!!) around 200 hectares of the Craigieburn Conservation Park designated land yesterday, 30th August.
There has been no announcement so what's happened.??
Perhaps South Canterbury Finance "Solid As" going into receivership has made the majority Australian Owned Porters Skifield company decide that it isn't the right time to be launching a $300 million skifield village development.
I've met a lot of Porters skiing enthusiasts in the last 10 days. They all joke that the field has always been called "Porters Rocks" because it has chronic lack of snow problems on its lower slopes. Artificial snowmaking can partially help solve that but is very expensive.
All the skiers I spoke with agree it is a great field for sking higher up. All also agree that the construction of a 3,500 person village on the cold SE facing lower muddy slopes below the Porters field is lunacy.
Come on DOC. It is time for common sense to prevail.
Bill English and the "development" obsessed members of the National Caucus will be far too busy worrying about South Canterbury Finance to have any time to lobby on behalf of an Aussie skifield company or to worry about DOC actually standing up for conservation against property development.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Tena Koe Tawaki
Any other news on this since your post five days ago. I've been out of town, but would like to help keep the pressure on if that is useful. Are they waiting for it all to pass ?
Would the earthquake have any impact on plans for such a huge village on the skifield lower slopes ? Did the earthquake do any significant damage in the Pass ?
Can seismic activity be used as further leverage ?
Kia ora
Posted 1 year ago # -
Last week, Sept 3, the ski field developers announced to the media that they have placed on hold their application to freehold nearly 200 hectares of the Craigieburn Conservation Park.
I have had a number of phone calls from conservation minded people who think that this means that we have won. However I don't think it is so simple. Apparently before Sept 3, there was a high level meeting between the developers and DOC. Nothing was made public from this but one can read between the lines and conclude that DOC recognised that the legal basis for the freeholding of the land was dodgy. They probably felt that it wouldn't stand up to a Judicial Review that Forest and Bird had threatened to seek. In exchange for the freehold land, the "sweetener" being offered by the developer of a $150,000 bribe for taking eggs from the Great Spotted Kiwi in Arthur's Pass National Park for artificial incubation almost certainly didn't stack up as a conservation priority.
The developers may now be looking at a more attractive bribe, particularly since DOC kiwi scientists reported that the proposed artificial breeding programme for Roa was a much lower priority than defining the conservation status of the Roa Kiwi birds and also that a top priority is protecting them from predation in the National Park.
Funnily enough even though the scientific evidence is overwhelming that if we want to save native birds, we should fund regular 1080 treatment of their forest homes, none of these developers ever want to fund this. They always want to fund invasive programmes that involve capturing wild birds and artificially rearing them. Maybe because it makes for better PR even if it is much worse for conservation?
We are going to have to watch the Craigieburn Conservation Park freeholding proposal very very closely. It remains really worrying that it got so far with DOC without any opportunity for public comment or involvement. The proposed freeholding of a Conservation Park to a developer also sets an appalling precedent for the future management of all conservation lands throughout New Zealand.
Congratulations to the courageous Canterbury-Aoraki Conservation Board, to Forest and Bird particularly Jen Millar, Chris Todd and Mike Britton and all his Head Office Team, to those who wrote to Al Morrison such as Jamie S and to all those within DOC who expressed concern about this very serious threat to the integrity of conservation land.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The latest update is that the developer seems to be aiming to get their planning consent from the willing Selwyn District Council for a plan change making it easier to build their Village. This will lift the "Outstanding Natural Landscape" status in the Selwyn District Plan given to the conservation land designated for Craigieburn Conservation Park. It will make it much easier for the developer to build their proposed 3,500 person Alpine Village.
Once they gain the District Council consent, you can just imagine how they will then ramp up the political pressure on DOC to freehold them nearly 200 hectares of fully protected conservation land.
It seems mad to me, but apparently under the RMA anyone can apply for a plan change to remove the Outstanding Natural Landscape status on the Conservation Land even though they do not own that land!
You can almost guarantee that DOC Canterbury will not be opposing the Plan Change. Their Canterbury DOC Senior Staff appear to have been in constant communication with the Alpine Village proponents seeking to find ways to make it easier for the developer to freehold the DOC land for an expanded ski field and a sewage disposal site for the proposed Village.
Fortunately the Canterbury-Aoraki Conservation Board bought DOC's secret dealings with the developer out into the public arena.
DOC Canterbury staff should have stuck to their guns and said no to the developers proposed Conservation Park freehold proposal from the outset.
We have just learned that immediately across the Porter River, just south of the proposed Conservation Park's naturally vegetated land where the ski village developers want to bulldoze for their sewage disposal field, there is for sale 8 hectares of freehold terrace land in largely exotic modified grasses.
This land is owned by Mr John Reid. It is on the market. Much of it has been substantially modified by a limestone quarry and associated earthworks and by a long history of heavy grazing and the Skifield Road.
Instead of being given proposed Conservation Park land essentially for free by the public of NZ, the Porters Ski Village speculators should do the right thing and sit down with their freehold neighbour, Mr Reid. They should negotiate the purchase of his 8 hectares. This flat alluvial terrace is exactly the sort of site engineers would recommend for a sewage disposal infiltration or evaporation field. (If the dreamtime Alpine Village ever actually sees the light of day)
Under the NZCA approved NZ Conservation Policy, one of the key tests for any private concession on DOC land and surely also where someone is trying to freehold DOC land is "Can the proposed activity take place on land nearby other than on conservation/park land?"
In the case of Porters Village proposal, very clearly the proposed sewage disposal scheme could be done on the freehold land of Mr Reid. The developers just need to get off their lazy butts and go and talk to their neighbour instead of seeking a taxpayer funded hand out.
DOC's Canterbury staff should also have worked out that alternative sewage disposal site option months ago. Instead they entered into what can only be seen from outside as secret and almost sleazy dealings with the resort proponents in what seems to be an effort to curry favour with the Conservation Minister or with the Government.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Unbelievably DOC right now are still processing the plans by the Porters Company called Blackfish to freehold 2 substantial chunks of mountain land. The land was purchased in 2004 by the Nature Heritage Fund for the Craigieburn Conservation Park and approved at that time by the Minister of Conservation as a Conservation Park addition. It is "specially protected land" under the Conservation Act and is therefore not legally available for exchange or sale.
Canterbury DOC seems determined to show how business friendly they can be and has put great pressure on the Conservation Board and other conservation quangoes to support the freeholding.
Porters skified shareholders, the Harvey family of Australia (of Harvey Norman homeware fame) are apparently determined that they must have freehold title to the Conservation Park land rather than operate it as an extension to their skifield under a DOC recreation concession which is how the Mt Hutt, Remarkables, Coronet Peak skifields all operate.
Are the Harvey family the Australian equivalent of Warner Brothers of the US, wanting special treatment under NZ law for their activities?
My answer to them (sung with horrible loud music of their TV and radio adverts) is "Go Harvey Norman....Go back to Australia".
Posted 1 year ago # -
"Romancing Business: DOC's new vision" is the headline of this article in the National Business Review 26 November 2010.
This article has a feature on Rob Fenwick who has a one year contract to set up a commercial business unit in DOC.
DOC's principal purpose is to protect biodiversity but that doesn't mean it can't enable a "great deal more economicgrowth, both within the conservation estate and elsewhere" Mr Fenwick says.
"It's my feeling, and I believe its Al Morrison's belief too, that DOC can satisfy all its obligations under the Conservation Act and its reason to be, and still be helpful and in fact fundamentally critical for businesses to flourish"
Is flogging off a key part of the Craigieburn Conservation Park to appease the recreational and business interests of one of Australia's richest families a cornerstone of DOC's leadership strategy of "Romancing Business" ?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Blackfish Developments have just had a major setback in their plans to freehold a big chunk of Conservation Land purchased in 2004 by the Nature Heritage Fund for addition to the Craigieburn Conservation Park.
The ecologically pristine Crystal Basin and the Northern Terrace area of the Craigieburn Range must not be freeholded to Blackfish say the Canterbury-Aoraki Conservation Board.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4638767/Board-rejects-Porters-land-swap-plan
Two more interesting twists in this saga: Blackfish I understand as of the last few days is now 100% Aussie owned after buying out the Kiwi shareholders including the spokesman for the group Michael Sleigh.
Sleigh, in an amazing "Sleight of hand" comment in the Press article of Feb 10 above, appears to reject the Conservation Board decision. He states that despite the Board decision, he knows some Board Members who support the freeholding. He completely fails to understand how democracy and any respectable Board operate, namely that you may have a divergence of views but when you eventually vote on something, the majority decision prevails and becomes the position of the whole Board.
Mr Sleigh has relentlessly pushed DOC, the Conservation Board and the Government to freehold this special conservation land to his Aussie employers. He must not succeed!
Posted 1 year ago # -
The Christchurch earthquake tragedy is the catalyst needed to get DOC staff and their organisation focused on the core work that we pay our taxes so they can do. That work is to protect New Zealand's natural heritage not to subsidise a rich man's dreams.
The 100% Australian owned Porters Skifield owner Blackfish Ltd have now had thousands of dollars worth of direct taxpayer subsidies for their mad scheme to freehold part of Craigieburn Conservation Park to build a high country resort village. The DOC Ecological Report on the proposal was written by a DOC ecologist whose salary is paid by the taxpayer. The same goes for the hundreds of hours of DOC time spent considering and commenting on the proposal and in servicing the Conservation Board's consideration of the matter. Nature Heritage Fund staff time is also billed to the hard pressed NZ taxpayer.
We want our taxes to be used to look after our conservation heritage and to help the hard pressed Christchurch people recover from their devastating earthquake. We do not want it used to subsidise the ski field dreams of an obscenely rich Australian family.
A perfectly good partially developed Alpine Village, Castle Hill Village, with full services of paved streets, electricity, potable water and waste water treatment is located 5 miles (8km) from the proposed Porters Alpine Village. It is on a geologically stable site not located beneath an avalanche path and rockslide on a mountain side along a faultline. Yet this is the features of the site proposed for the Porter's "Alpine Village" of 3,500 beds.
DOC please stop this nonsense. Tell Porter's to get lost and I'm sure Gerry Brownlee and John Key will now understand. They know that our Government now has much higher priorities.
Posted 11 months ago # -
There is a scarey rumour circulating that the DG of DOC has approved the sale of the Forest Park land to Blackfish for a resort developement.
Has anyone heard anything on the bush telegraph?
Posted 11 months ago # -
The Minister of Conservation has just lifted the Conservation Park status from 198 hectares of former Castle Hill Pastoral Lease purchased by the Nature Heritage Fund in 2004. She rescinded the former Conservation Minister Chris Carter's 2004 decision that this area was to be designated Conservation Park. The DG of DOC has announced today, 23 March 2011, that DOC will freehold this formerly designated Conservation Park pristine mountain land in a complex exchange deal whereby Porters ski field will get freehold title to this area.
What a shoddy disgrace!
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.