Recognise Farms as Working Landscapes
Public or private place
There is growing concern about the RMA implications for landowners of providing public access over private land. A fairly recent Environment Court case (EnvC 66/04) in Queenstown declining consents for a subdivision because of its impact on views from private walking tracks and paper roads has implications for farming activities taking place in any area where a farm can be viewed from a public place.
The decision may mean that a farm, where it can be viewed from a "public place", may be declined consent to undertake certain activities on the basis of its impact on public views or effect on their enjoyment of that area. Decisions made on this basis take no account of property rights or economic viability, doing untold harm to a farmers' confidence to invest.
Councils will continue to seek to protect the public's enjoyment of rural amenities from public places, as well as trying to address land-use activities that are likely to impact on landscapes in prominent areas viewed from public places as long as the protection of amenity values continues to rank highly in the Act.
Change the RMA to tone down the emphasis on protecting amenity values
Promoting or offering a precise definition or a national instrument to deal with the protection or management of public place (or amenity) carries significant risks for landowners and its potential impacts on activities that landowners are able to undertake near public places or where their farm can be viewed by the public.
The issue of defining a private walking track as a public place can only be resolved with any certainty through landowners closing off access. This is an outcome that no party wants; all it does is send a strong warning to any farmer who allows public access to his farm.
Tone down or remove the requirement to protect amenity values in section 7 of the Act.
