Case For Establishing Trust To Conserve Natural Beauty

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31152, 31 August 1966, Page 6

Case For Establishing Trust To Conserve Natural Beauty

(Specially written for “The

Press” by

Dr. R. H. LOCKER,

of Hamilton.

The New Zealander in England may well be depressed by her industrial cities, but outside their limits he can hardly avoid pleasant surprise that rural England had survived so well an industrial revolution and the pressure of 50 million people. It is now plain to the British that the rural beauty of their land is receding as the necessary demands on her resources grow, as incomes and leisure increase and above all, as the number of cars multiplies (now 9 million, a projected 26 million by 1980). “Given that townspeople ought to be able to spend their leisure in the country if they want to, the problem is to enable them to enjoy this leisure without harm to those who live and work in the country and without spoiling what they go to the countryside to seek.” These words introduce the report “Leisure in the Countryside, England and Wales.” They mark a new awareness that detailed conservation planning is an urgent necessity if England is to remain a “green and pleasant land.” A survey has shown that about 900 miles of the coast line of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is both unspoiled and of such outstanding beauty as to be worthy of permanent preservation. To this end the National Trust has launched Enterprise Neptune with the support of 21 government agencies and 68 national voluntary associations.

The National Trust, although a private body with 155,000 subscribing members, has become recognised as the nation’s repository for its treasures of art, architecture and natural beauty. It has set out to acquire by purchase, gift or legacy, control over suitable stretches of seaside land and seeks to raise £2,000,000 for this purpose. Already it has acquired control over 60 miles of outoutstanding coastline. However, the trust is still competing for this 900 miles of desirable coastline against mounting pressure from individual commercial interests. Each man’s fair share is already only one inch.

The creation of country parks near large cities, the opening of 1250 miles of long distance footpaths, procuring access to open country and the use of rivers and canals are all facets of a very broad approach to use of the countryside. Example From U.S.

Yellowstone National Park, created in 1872, was the world’s first. Since then the United States of America has built a system of national parks and a staff without equal. Yet on a national view the seashores went unregarded until the designation of Cape Hatteras National Seashore in 1953. Since then six others have been established and three more are proposed. Private ownership of coastline (beach included) badly frustrates dwellers in the more densely populated regions, particularly in the north-east. Here fortunately the great sand barrier islands of the Atlantic coast have just been rescued from the “realtors.”

A beginning has been made on the Pacific coast. In 1958 the entire 1700 miles was surveyed by air and the likely areas on foot to assess the remaining opportunities. To serve the great industrial cities of the mid-West four National are proposed on Lakes Michigan and Superior.

All national seashores and lakeshores are administered by the National Parks Service of the Department of the Interior, which is concerned with management, conservation and development of the nation’s natural resources. In some cases there is very little, in others a high proportion of private land within the boundaries. We could learn much from the United States and England. Our coastlines are just as fine—not the equal of England’s for civilised beauty but superior in natural beauty. The need for conservation here is just as great and the chances of • achieving it greater, provided that we act now.

Confused Situation

The present situation in New Zealand is very confused. The two principal government departments involved are Lands and Works. The administration of the National Parks Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Lands. The National Parks Authority has no power to become involved beyond the boundaries of the mountain wilderness areas it controls.

Town and country planning is vested in the Minister of Works, who also controls offshore islands. These two departments tend to pursue independent courses.

Much choice coastal land has Maori owners. The Maori Land Court may approve the partition of such land among its multiple owners, against the wishes of county or town and country planning. Once subdivided it may then be freely sold to other owners. County councils have very considerable powers to permit or block development schemes by zoning their land, but for various reasons they are reluctant to use them.

Town and country planning become involved only in the case of appeal against the county decision. The result is the front row subdividing (one chain from mean tide mark) that continues to deface permanently our best beaches. The appointment of the Nature Conservation Council was a welcome government initiative. Although it has often not been heeded, it has made a worthwhile contribution.

The private bodies, notably the Royal Forest and Bird Society, have pioneered the way for conservation in New Zealand. These bodies, remain somewhat suspicious of the efficacy of the Nature Conservation Council in restraining hydro and other activities in national parks or areas of scenic beauty and also of the adequacy of the National Parks Act. This legislation is under review. Co-ordination Needed

In Britain two conferences on the countryside in 1970 have already been held in an attempt to bring together all official and private agencies to co-ordinate their efforts. There is a strong case for such a conference in New Zealand. One topic that such a con-

ference might consider is the creation of a custodian for the beauty of inhabited places. The most obvious way would be to extend the scope of our National Parks Authority. This is the English approach, but their national parks are an entirely different proposition from our own. They contain large areas of privately owned farm land and even villages. People continue to live and work within their boundaries.

In the United States the National Parks Service has the great advantage of working inside the all-embracing Department of the Interior. In view of the grossly divided responsibilities here I feel that something quite different from our National Parks Authority is needed to cope with the problems of conserving the beauty of the scenic but inhabited parts of New Zealand. 1 would like to propose something akin to the British National Trust but with the active participation of the government. It could be called, say, the “Coast and Countryside Trust” and be controlled by a council made up of representatives of the following:— (1) Ministry of Lands (a) Marginal Lands Board, (b) National Parks Authority, (2) Ministry of Works (a) Town and Country Planning, (b) National Highways Board. Representatives of other interested Departments should be appointed, to sit only when required by the agenda. (3) Counties and regional authorities. (4) Nature Conservation Council. (5) Conservation societies. (6) Sporting bodies. (7) Automobile associations. (8) Scientific bodies.

Trust Functions

The chairman should be a non-government person of high calibre with a longstanding interest in conservation.

I envisage an incorporated body, able to hold property (which could only be touched by Act of Parliament), administered by a full-time director and professional staff including qualified .planners and conservationists, with all necessary personnel for the provision and maintenance of facilities. Regional advisory committees might be desirable.

The trust should have the following functions and powers.—

(1) To provide a forum for the recognition, discussion and reconciliation of the various demands upon our scenic regions for living, production and leisure.

(2) To conduct a nationwide survey of areas of special scenic merit and potential for public enjoyment. High priority should be given to quality coastline near large centres of population, e.g., the eastern coastline of the Auckland province where the destructive pressure is greatest and the potential for serving large numbers of people is also greatest. (3) All seaside or lakeshore subdivisions would automatically come before it and other country subdivisions on request, with power to prevent these proceeding pending negotiations between the trust, the county, and town and country planning. The minister would have the final decision. Access to Beaches

(4) To negotiate as in (3) for the declaration of coastal areas of great merit as national seashores and then to develop and administer them. This concept was explained in an earlier article by the author—“A Case for National Seashores.” This involves preventing sub-division or permitting it only in specified zones back from the shore, the leasing of access ways to beaches and campsites from farmers, the provision of minimal facilities and the policing of the areas. Present land tenure would not be disturbed but land could be purchased gradually as it came on the market and as funds permitted. Pockets of sub-division could be included in such areas. Other areas, large or small, on off-shore islands, lake shores, or in the countryside, could likewise be designated as special areas (like Britain’s “areas of outstanding natural beauty”) with similar protection. (5) For those not interested in camping the trust could provide lodge accomodation

similar to that offered in some national parks. Youth hostels could well be built in the tmst areas. It could be done with great economy of space and planned to enhance rather than mar the beauty of the locality. (6) To obtain by good will, lease or purchase, rights of way for long distance tracks and access ways to shore or open country and to develop these for public use. Simultaneous Development (7) To promote simultaneous development of land for pleasure and agricultural profit. As pointed out above much coastal land is marginally farmed. In many cases a new road could give access to a beach and at the same time open up land for development For this reason a representative of the Marginal Lands Board is included in the council. Well-farmed land is also of greater scenic value than poorly-farmed land.

(8) To act as a repository for gifts and bequests of land to the nation. It should be noted that 90% of the present land holdings of the British National Trust have come to it in this way. There must be many New Zealand landowners who have cherished through their life time some choice bay or piece of bush, and would like to see it become for all time a source of pleasure to the nation.

(9) To receive gifts or bequests of money for land purchase. (10) To purchase land of outstanding scenic value or to purchase covenants over it. (11) It might take over at request the control of small reserves belonging to private or local bodies, where the care of these had become a burden to the owners.

(12) To promote a higher standard of behaviour in the countryside. (13) To encourage in young New Zealanders a keener appreciation of their natural heritage and a love of natural history.

(14) To give New Zealanders a stake in their own trust, membership could be offered to the public at an annual subscription. As an incentive certain privileges to members might be offered. (15) With income from membership dues, gifts and bequests, campsite and lodge charges, and leased grazing, the system could probably run on something like a three to one subsidy from the Government as is the English pattern. The degree of control may be new and unwelcome to many New Zealanders. We accept a highly socialised society in other respects. Why should we remain ruggedly and chaotically individualistic in the disposal of our national assets? We will have much more freedom for enjoyment if we impose controls now than if we wait until they are thrust upon us when much more of our beauty has disappeared. We now face the emergence or large and hungry subdivisional syndicates, the wealthy businessman who wants a 10-acre plot for his ‘bach,’ and the purchase of choice bays by New Zealand or American business concerns with an eye to tourist potential. I believe that tourist potential of our shores is great, but it will be better served by a chain of national seashores and reserves than by a few glossy resorts. More important ordinary New Zealanders and their children will be better served.

With each year we lose more that is priceless and irreplaceable. Now is the time.