Let DOC Buy Its Own Land

WHAT is it with local authorities that they increasingly seem to see land purchase as an acceptable scheme, when in reality it is either outside of their mandate and/or lacking consultation with the people who pay the rates they collect? If the Department of Conservation wants to buy more peat swamp (Southland Times, February 28) and it is so important to New Zealand, let the Department of Conservation buy it through its own funding avenues.

To ask Environment Southland to assist with funds is surely outside of a regional council’s mandate.

As it has expressed “support in principle” , would chief executive Ciaran Keogh please answer: 1.ENWhat is the total cost of this purchase?2.ENWhy does this have to go through not one but two sales processes, that is, sale of one of two areas offered being from one farmer to another, then on to DOC-Environment Southland through the second owner? Presumably farmer No 2 expects a profit otherwise he would step back and allow DOC to buy direct.

3.If farmer No 2 buys from farmer No 1 then DOC declines to on- purchase, is the land likely to be developed? 4.If DOC did decline to buy, and the area is so important conservation-wise, would consents be allowed for the owner to clear and develop it? 5.Please name which Environment Southland councillors voted for and against making funds available to DOC. It is no comfort to ratepayers that funding for subsidising the purchase may be taken from an inappropriate reserve fund.

J F Whitfield, Invercargill Environment Southland chief executive Ciaran Keogh replied: 1. The recent valuation of the land is in the vicinity of $1.1 million. This valuation failed to take into account the significant consenting issues that must be traversed before any drainage of the land is allowed. DOC has been advised of this and a part of the council’s resolution requires that DOC revalue the land, taking into account the consenting issues and the significant uncertainty as to whether the land could be developed before the council will agree to assist with the purchase.

2. We cannot comment on the two-step sale process because this occurred before Environment Southland was approached for funding assistance.

3. That decision is up to farmer No 2 and the consenting process.

4. It would be prejudicial to the consenting process for Environment Southland to comment on the possible outcome of a consent application.

Draining the land is a discretionary activity and consideration of an application would take into account the fact that the land is adjoined to a Ramsar wetland and a fundamental part of the structure of that feature. Such a development also contravenes the “Dairy Accord” , which requires that all dairy farms fence off wetlands.

5. If Environment Southland does provide funding support for the project, the cash will come from the Marine Fee, which is money paid to Environment Southland by Cruise New Zealand for cruiseliners entering the waters of Fiordland. This money can be spent only on activities and programmes that relate to the coast. In this instance the wetland contains a tidal estuary. This payment from Cruise New Zealand is based on a voluntary agreement. It is expended on projects like this one only with its agreement. Cruise New Zealand supports the use of this fund to support this project. No ratepayer- sourced funds are involved.

Councillors Angus, Cockburn and McPhail opposed the use of funds and the supporting councillors did so reluctantly.

All expressed concern at the value placed on the land by the valuers, hence the requirement for a revaluation. There is a general consensus among councillors that this land should be included in the Awarua-Waituna Reserve because it contains the least-modified major water course remaining in the wetland complex.

All on council share your correspondent’s concern that this purchase is not being fully funded by the Government through the Nature Heritage Fund. It is a worrying development that regional government is being asked to contribute, but in this particular case the cause is a worthy one and the opportunity to use the Marine Fund rather than ratepayer-sourced funds allowed the council to consider supporting this purchase where otherwise it would unequivocally not have.

(c) 2008 Southland Times, The. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.