OIAD 1931 NHF meeting minutes redactions.pdf

Item 1 - Approved Minutes 6 May 2020

Approved NHF minutes from 6 May 2020 video conference meeting
24/11/2020 motion to accept moved by Jan, seconded by Sue, carried
Present, all via Microsoft Teams:
• Jan Riddell
• Chris Severne
• Gina Solomon
• Sue Yerex
• Kees Hyink
• Bruce Hill
• David Talbot (for latter half of the meeting).
Agenda
1. Jan’s update on her discussions with the MOC
Jan and the MOC spoke the previous weekend about Ōhau Downs. The MOC was supportive
of the Committee’s and DOC’s approach in withdrawing the Crown’s initial offer. The
uncertainty created by Covid 19 meant the Crown needed time to reconsider. But, the MOC
doesn’t want to lose this case, and ideally the ~1790ha would be purchased at a price less
than the valuation. Jan pointed out that the valuer had advised that rural land prices were
predicted to stay unchanged. The MOC stated that she didn’t want the Crown paying for the
survey costs.
Jan also provided an update on Peter de Lange’s resignation from the Committee. Peter
resigned as he is over committed and considers that he couldn’t give this the role the
attention it deserves.
2. Update on Ōhau Downs and discussion about the proposed recommendation
Jan outlined the reasoning for the proposed recommendation, being that if Ōhau Downs is
purchased, it needs to be managed as part of the emerging Mackenzie Drylands Park, and
that DOC needs to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi (section 4 of the Conservation Act).
Bruce spoke to the memo dated 24/04/2020 (attachment 1). Bruce set out in the memo the
reasoning for seeking the change in classification of the land proposed to be purchased at
Ōhau Downs. Bruce said that the level of protection remains the same, irrespective of the
classification.
The Committee agreed with the recommendation in the memo.
3. DOC’s work under Covid 19
David Talbot spoke about how DOC will work under levels 4. Only emergency work will be
done, staff work from home, field work not happening.
4. Funds available for 2020/21 FY
Bruce estimates there’ll be about $300k of savings from the Ōhau Downs and the Upper
Taieri cases. He was uncertain what funding the NHF would receive in the Budget.

5. Update on current cases
• 16/09 Himatangi- waiting on surveying to be completed. Once the area is defined, it will
be transferred to the Crown. The balance of the payment will then be made.
• 17/05 Kitchener Park- the applicant has run into surveying issues with LINZ. These will
take up to early 2021 to resolve
• 9(2)(j), 9(2)(g)(i)
• 18/02 Kaitorete- Bruce said that that DOC no longer required the funding (~$900,000),
as Ngāi Tahu will now negotiate directly with the landowner. The ~$900k has been
returned to the NHF general budget
• 18/04 Upper Taieri Scroll Plain- Bruce said that negotiations were progressing well, and
that 9(2)(a)
(the negotiator), if successful will save the NHF about $200,000,
having secured the land for less than the valued price.
• 19/04 Honeymoon Valley- the applicant is in negotiations with the vendor. The vendor is
wanting more than what the applicant received from the NHF.
• 19/07 Taieri Paerau wetland- this case has been completed, with that land being
transferred to the Crown. It still needs to be gazetted per the MOC’s decision.
6. The next funding round
Jan said that the next round could be targeted to wetlands, per the MOC’s instructions.
Bruce commented that he’d need to check if the current criteria allow for this.
7. Update on the appointments to the NHF Committee
Kees said that DOC had provided the MOC the information she requires to make the
appointments.

Attachment 2: Ōhau Downs reclassification memo
Date:
24 April 2020
To:
The Nature Heritage Fund Committee
CC:
Kees Hyink, David Talbot
From:
Bruce Hill
Subject: Request to amend proposed land status for land that may be
purchased at Ōhau Downs (NHF 18/05)
Purpose
To request that the Nature Heritage Fund Committee (the Committee) amends its recommendation
to the Minister of Conservation (the Minister) to allow a change to the proposed classification for
land that may be purchased at Ōhau Downs.
Background
The Committee has made two previous recommendations (18 September 2019 and 11 February
2020) to the Minister about the Ōhau Downs case. The Committee recommended in both instances
(on the Department’s advice) that if the Crown purchases the ~1790 hectares at Ōhau Downs (Lot 4),
the land’s ecological values be protected under the Reserves Act 1977 and managed by the
Department (DOC) in partnership with mana whenua. If purchased, the area is likely to form part of
the Mackenzie Drylands Heritage Area (DHA)1.
The Minister has requested the DOC investigate options for land protection classification for Ōhau
Downs to take into account the ecological and cultural values for the DHA. This is request has arisen
because the DHA is being co-designed with mana whenua, which includes determining the
classification of areas that will form part of the DHA. This approach was recently acknowledged by
the Minister when she met with mana whenua in Te Manahuna/Mackenzie Basin.
DOC envisage the co-design work will be done over the next 12–18 months. Predetermining a
classification for Ōhau Downs would make it difficult to include in the DHA project and could
undermine the trust DOC has developed with mana whenua.
Assessment of options
We have been advised by our Statutory Land Management colleagues:
• If land is purchased under the Reserves Act it cannot then be transferred to be held or
classified pursuant to the Conservation Act 1987.
• But land acquired pursuant to the Conservation Act can later be classified as a reserve
(under the Reserves Act).
• If Lot 4 is acquired under the Conservation Act, it could be held for conservation purposes
until such time it is classified as part of the DHA project.
1 The Mackenzie Drylands Heritage Area is expected to be renamed as part of the ongoing co-design activities
occurring with mana whenua.

• The DHA project would run separate processes for classification and naming of Lot 4, which
may include public notification.
To create the space and opportunity for the co-design work, we propose that should Lot 4 be
acquired, it is held for conservation purposes in the first instance, pursuant to Conservation Act
section 7. Appendix 1 contains section 7 of the Conservation Act and this act’s interpretation of
“conservation”.
Please note: Regardless of the final classification, protecting the ecological values is paramount.
DOC in anticipation of the purchase has secured NHF funding for a rabbit proof fence. DOC’s Te
Manahuna/Mackenzie Operations team is aware of the potential addition as conservation area and
will be actively identifying resources to protect and enhance the subject land over the next 18
months in conjunction with their colleagues in the DHA Team.
Next Steps
I ask that the Committee review the information contained in this memo then agree to making a
new recommendation to the Minister to amend the proposed land status of Lot 4, Ōhau Downs. I
have provided a draft recommendation below.
New recommendation
That if the area (Lot 4) is purchased, its ecological and cultural values be protected under the
Conservation Act 1987 and it be acquired and held for those conservation purposes pursuant to
section 7 of that Act.
The Committee considers what is paramount, whatever the final classification, is the protection of
the land’s ecological values, and the land’s management, pursuant to the Conservation Act section 4.

Appendix 1
Conservation Act 1987 interpretation of conservation: conservation means the preservation and
protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values,
providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the
options of future generations.
Conservation Act 1987- Part 3: Conservation areas, section 7: Land may be acquired and held for
conservation purposes
(1) The Minister, and the Minister responsible for an agency or department of State that has
control of any land, may jointly, by notice in the Gazette describing it, declare that the land is
held for conservation purposes; and, subject to this Act, it shall thereafter be so held.
(1A)  Notwithstanding  subsection  (1),  in  the  case  of  any  land to  which section  61 or section
62 applies, the Minister may, by notice in the Gazette describing it, declare that the land is held
for conservation purposes; and, subject to this Act, it shall thereafter be so held.
(1B)  In the case  of land that  is  foreshore within the common marine and coastal area, the
Minister may declare, by notice in the Gazette describing the land, that the land is held for
conservation purposes.
(2) The Minister may, by agreement, acquire any interest in land for conservation purposes;
and, subject to this Act, it shall thereafter be held for those purposes.
(3) Nothing in subsections (1) and (2) applies in respect of land that is Crown forest land within
the meaning of section 2 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989.
(4) For  the  purposes  of  subsection  (1),  the  Minister  of  Forestry  shall  be  deemed  to  be  the
Minister responsible for a department of State that has control of State forest land that is not
Crown forest land within the meaning of section 2 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989.

Attachment 2: 9(2)(j)

9(2)(j)

Item 2 - Approved Minutes 14 September 2020

Approved NHF minutes from 14 September 2020 video conference
meeting
24/11/2020 motion to accept moved by Paula Smith, seconded by Sue Yerex, carried
Present, all via Microsoft Teams:
• Jan Riddell
• Gina Solomon
• Sue Yerex
• Gerry McSweeney
• Paula Smith
• Bruce Hill (DOC)
The meeting ran 3pm - 4pm.
Jan greeted all attendees, and welcomed Paula to the NHF Committee. Gina kindly provided a
karakia.
Jan apologised for the short time frame in convening this meeting. She indicated the two documents
to discuss were Di Lucas’ memo (attachment one) and the accompanying plan (attachment two).
Jan commented that the MOC is unaware of any negative feedback about the Tū Te Rakiwhānoa
Drylands (MacKenzie Drylands area). Jan thought that this is very encouraging.
Jan always considered that the original Ōhau Downs application (18/05) was a step-by-step project.
It has taken time to make the first step, being the purchase of the ~1790ha. In the bigger picture,
there is more areas on Ōhau Downs to protect. There are now donors available to assist with this.
With the momentum of the Drylands area, the donors are ready to spend up to $1.55 million of the
purchase of ~1000ha, to be protected as PCL (Public Conservation Land).
The MOC is delighted to progress the purchase of the ~1000ha. 9(2)(a)
is seeking a contribution
of up to $500,000 from the NHF.
Sue commented that she couldn’t recall any commitment to a staged approach. She thought that
the NHF recommendation was to purchase the ~1790ha, with no commitment to stage work and/or
working with donors. Jan commented that the Committee had acknowledged values in other parts
of Ōhau Downs and the wider Mackenzie Basin, and picked off the easy protected area first. Jan
considered the Committee didn’t get to grips with the other areas. Jan personally never lost sight of
the big picture.
Gerry commented he’s walked over the property, and considered the shore of Lake Ōhau is last of
the three Mackenzie basins lakes not developed. He didn’t realise that the Committee hadn’t
previously recommended the 550ha to be purchased. The original application covered several
different land parcels. Gerry was surprised by the announcement, and after conversations with Lou
Sanson and Mike Slater (Director-General Operations), that the Crown was spending between $5-$6
million on land at Ōhau Downs. In terms of reserve design, the ~1790ha plus the 550ha and the QEII
covenant area make sense. Gerry considered the covenant allows for generous land development.

Gerry asked where the potential funding may come from. Bruce stated the NHF’s current budget is
about $2 million. Gerry is disappointed that DOC isn’t contributing financially e.g. via LAF.
Gina commented that she didn’t first feel right about 9(2)(a) proposal. Gina was concerned about:
a) The process, and supports what Sue said about the Committee’s previous recommendations
on the ~1790ha. It is also unfair to consider this proposal outside of a publicised funding
round.
b) Why the NHF Committee would recommend to the MOC that public money be used to buy a
QE II covenant, which area areas protected in perpetuity. Gina considered that perhaps the
landowner could work with others to better manage the area.
Sue agreed that considering purchasing the QEII covenant isn’t right. This is predicated on a
deference in management between the QEII Trust and DOC. Sue isn’t comfortable with taxpayers
money going to purchase an already permanently protected area. Any potential management issues
of the QEII covenant could be worked through with the landowner/Trust.
Gerry noted that the donor could perhaps purchase the 550ha by themselves. He considers the
protection provided by QEII covenant is poor, and noted that NHF funds had been used previously to
purchase QEII covenants. Sue commented she also had visited this area, and reckoned it would be
beneficial to review the covenant’s monitoring reports.
Action- Bruce to get these reports. Not undertaken as Sue spoke to the local QEII rep about the
area’s management and circulated information about the area’s management to the Committee.
Gerry mentioned that the QEII covenant provides for burning. Gina pointed out that the covenant
objectives are paramount, and that burning isn’t a right.
Paula commented on the process issue (considering this application outside of a publicised funding
round). Paula asked if the MOC would accept 9(2)(a) proposal? Jan said yes, and that making the
contribution   has sought would leave the NHF budget at ~$1.5 million.
Bruce, in response to Sue’s query about the final date the MOC can make a decision before an
election, said that the 25/9/2020 is the last date to get matters to the MOC. Post this, DOC must
submit them under special circumstances.
Gerry has analysed the MOC’s decisions and sensed the ~1790ha was the end. Paula commented
that that the donors want the QEII covenant protected. Sue and Gina reiterated that having the
monitoring reports would be beneficial to the Committee. Gerry commented that there’s no public
access through the covenant. Sue commented that generally there is, as its over private land. Sue
also stated again that she can’t support using public funds to purchase already protected areas.
Gerry pointed out that the NHF Committee can recommend that the NHF’s future budget can be
drawn down.
Sue pointed out that DOC’s (Jeremy Severisen’s) 2019 presentation to the Committee detailed that
the highest priority areas for protection are north of Tekapo.
Jan suggested a contribution to the purchase of the 550ha. Sue suggested/supported repurposing
existing fencing budget to the 550ha
Bruce suggested that the Committee’s recommendation potentially include:

• A contribution of up to $200,000
• Funding for:
o
a valuation
o
a negotiator
o
survey costs
• The classification be section 7 Conservation Act.
Jan commented to stress the need for protection in perpetuity.
Gerry took the opportunity to talk about the impending wetland funding round. He’s spoken widely
to people on the Coast, who aren’t supportive of this target round, as it may focus on the more vocal
landowners. Gerry considered the NHF could better work in funding covenanting and protection
incentives.
ADDENDUM
Post meeting
Post the meeting, as requested by the Committee, Bruce Hill drafted a recommendation
seeking funding approval from the MOC. Bruce circulated this draft around the Committee.
Sue provided context from the QEII Trust about the management of the covenanted area.
Gerry also provided the Committee comment about the covenanted area.
The final recommendation (below) reflected the different views amongst the Committee
members. The Committee agreed that this recommendation be put to the MOC.
That Nature Heritage Funds are allocated to the purchase by the Royal Forest and Bird
Protection Society (the Society) of the Land (being ~550ha at Ōhau Downs), conditional on:
• A deed of agreement (DOA) being entered into by the Department and the Society.
The DOA to include:
o
How the donor funds will be transferred to and held in a Crown account for
the purchase of the Land.
o
The parameters the Department’s negotiator will work to in negotiating an
Agreement for Sales and Purchase (ASAP). These parameters will include
getting an independent valuation of the Land.
o
The contributions the Department and Society agree to make.
o
That the ASAP is satisfactory to both the Department and the Society.
• That if the Land is purchased, it be protected under section 7 of the Conservation
Act 1987.
• That the funding be allocated from the NHF as follows:
o
A contribution towards the purchase of the Land of up to $200,000 (ex GST)
should it be required to augment the donor contributions.
o
The Crown’s share of:
▪
Negotiation costs, of up $10,000 (ex GST), should it be required.
▪
Valuation costs of up to $10,000 (ex GST), should it be required.
• That the existing $300,000 (ex GST) allocated to the NHF 18/05 Ōhau Downs project
for fencing is also used to securely fence the 550ha.

Attachment two

Item 3 - Minutes 24-25 November 2020

NHF Committee minutes from meeting 24-25 November 2020, DOC
National Office, Wellington
Present:
• Jan Riddell (Chair, NHF Committee)
• Gerry McSweeney (NHF Committee)
• Sue Yerex (NHF Committee)
• Paula Smith (NHF Committee)
• Bruce Hill (DOC, support)
• Jo-Ella Sarich (DOC legal, part of meeting)
• Jane McKesser (DOC policy) and Helen Sharp (MfE policy)- both for part of meeting
Apologies
• Gina Solomon (NHF Committee)
• David Talbot (DOC, Director Partnerships National Support)
• Kees Hyink (DOC, Funds Manager)
Agenda
1. Chair's update
Jan welcomed everyone to the meeting, especially Paula on her joining the NHF Committee and
Gerry’s return. Jan and Bruce gave an update on the Ōhau Downs and Upper Taieri Scroll Plain
cases.
Jan commented she’d miss her excellent working relationship with Hon. Eugenie Sage (ex MOC),
and that it was a shame that the Upper Taieri Scroll Plain case didn’t get completed while
Eugenie was MOC. Jan considered that the Committee’s recommendations from this meeting
are a good starting point for developing a relationship with Hon. Kiri Allen, the new MOC.
Gerry commented that he’d spoken to Eugenie about the protection of Westcoast wetlands.
Jan commented she’d met New Zealand Forest Restoration Trust members in Invercargill and
that they spoke about the Trust’s incompletion of the Bethells case (15/11). The MOC approved
a $300,000 contribution to the purchase and covenanting of 37ha. The Trust have only
covenanted 32ha. They are looking at replanting the remaining 5ha and purchasing an adjoining
area and are considering lodging a new application for the adjoining area.
2. Committee members update
Paula commented on the Rob Donald Trust’s purchase of an area of predominately regenerating
shrubland/forest in Lyttelton Harbour. This area mightn’t have been suitable for an application
to the NHF.
Gerry commented on the Lake Pukaki and Ōhau fires. 9(2)(g)(i)
The Ōhau fire unfortunately burnt PCL that was purchased
using NHF funding. Fire is becoming more common, burning is becoming more widespread.
9(2)(g)(i)
. 9(2)(g)(i)
1

9(2)(g)(i)
Paula commented that the Timaru
Herald ran a good article on the fires.
Gerry asked if the Committee should look at auditing DOC’s management of land acquired using
NHF funding. Bruce commented that the process is that NHF Committee makes funding
recommendations to the MOC, who then decides what applications to fund. The MOC then
generally delegates DOC to implement her decision. Bruce therefore wondered whether the
Committee ability to direct DOC to provide them an audit of PCL purchased using NHF funding.
There was debate around this matter, that remained unresolved.
Gerry also commented that the status of land protected using NHF funding. He said that on the
West Coast, for example, some consider stewardship land as unallocated Crown land and
therefore up for grabs. Gerry also wondered about the development of a status for land where
Iwi want to co-manage. The Committee didn’t reach a conclusion on these matters.
Sue commented that the Committee do as much as they can with the budget at hand.
Sue moved (seconded by Jan) the acceptance of the minutes from the 6th May and 14th
September meetings and these actions were carried unanimously.
Jan provided an update on Ōhau Downs. 9(2)(a)  is working with Dave Wilkins (DOC tenure
review manager).   ha
9(2)(a
s approached 9(2)(a)
about the 550ha. At first he wasn’t
interested, but later wanted to engage. The parties are getting the area valued by Colliers, then
and 9(2)(a) will meet again.
Forest and Bird are nervous about entering into a deed of agreement with DOC, so The Nature
Conservancy may enter into this deed in their place.
3. Assessment of the received applications
The Committee had a preliminary discussion about this wetland round and the potential impact
of Government’s freshwater policy on the demand on the NHF.
Jan detailed the origin of this funding round. The ex MOC and Jan discussed this sometime ago.
The Westcoast Regional Council have identified significant wetlands in their Regional Land and
Water Plan. A resource consent is now required to undertake specific activities in these
wetlands. The Committee discussed whether wetland owners who lose property rights should
be compensated. This discussion wasn’t concluded.
Gerry commented that the:
• 20/01 9(2)(g)(i)
• 20/02 application had been considered before. This is a high-quality area
• 20/03 applicant paid too much in 2015. They were then wanting to convert the area to a
dairy farm.
Gerry considered that ecologically the applications are, from most to least significant are:
• 20/03
• 20/02
• 20/01
2

• 20/04.
Sue asked if the area described in application 20/02 is at threat from sea-level rise. Jan commented
there needs to be retreat in some areas. The Committee discussed 20/01 as an example. Is retreat
there possible and would the purchase of this area result in sustainable outcomes?
Sue also commented that:
• 20/03
o
a large portion of the application area is managed by LINZ
o
is fencing out deer possible?
o
does DOC undertake deer culls in this area?
o
this area is well connected to nearby/adjoining protected land
o
the area exceeded the NHF criteria (using the NHF assessment card)
o
a valuation should be secured
o
this is the Westcoast Regional Council’s largest scheduled wetland, though Gerry
questioned this.
• 20/01
o
is there any intelligence on why the applicant decided not to go with the QEII Trust?
o
the area has a GV of $96,000. Should a valuation be secured?
• 20/02- asked about DOC staff’s potential involvement in this case.
The Committee asked Bruce to get more information on:
• The 20/03 gold permit
• What boundaries of the 20/03 area require fencing.
There was discussion (not concluded) about how to split the available funding between the
applications (ex 20/04).
Ōhau Downs celebratory morning tea
Attendees were the Committee, Lou Sanson (Director-General), 9(2)(a)
(NHF negotiator), and
National Office DOC staff who assisted in completing this case.
Conservation Act section 4 workshop/ Catch up with Ngaire best (DOC Director-Governance)
Jo-Ella Sarich (DOC senior solicitor) presented to Committee how, in partnership with DOC, they
need to consider how the use of the NHF can give effect to section 4 of the Conservation Act. Section
4 states:
“This Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi”.
Jo-Ella’s presentation is contained in attachment 1. Ngaire Best (Governance) and Jacqui Tizard
(Funds team) attended this session. The Committee raised many questions and were particularly
3

concerned about how confidentiality could be maintained if iwi/hapū were consulted with,
particularly with application made by private parties.
Gerry asked why progress hadn’t been made on the amendment of NHF criteria, so that these give
effect to Conservation Act s4. Bruce responded, saying that Gina and he had been working on such
amendments. However, Gina had been to a presentation similar to Jo-Ella’s, and considered that the
Committee have a similar experience, then work with DOC on amending the criteria so that these
give effect to s4.
Ngaire Best commented that there is an expectation that the NHF gives effect to section 4.
Workshop on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity
Jane McKessar and Helen Sharpe (DOC and MfE policy analysts) spoke about the draft National
Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS). They gave a summary of the current NPS’ history
and noted the majority of the 7,000 submissions on the draft NPS were in support.
The Hon James Shaw is the Minister in charge of the NPS’ gazetting. This action is a priority of the
Greens. Discussions have started, with the intent that the NPS is fully gazetted by mid-2021. Gerry
commented that the NHF is not a compensation fund.
The NPS will contain criteria for Councils to identify RMA s(6c) areas. This will enable more
consistency in SNA identification nationwide. The NPS will also include the identification of SNA’s on
non-private land. Direction on whether SNAs on PCL need to be identified is still developing.
Gerry commented on the West Coast there’s a big tension about the NPS and the Freshwater
National Policy Statement. Helen commented that the NPS doesn’t lock-up areas but sets
requirement to get consent for specified activities. The NPS doesn’t bring an obligation to manage a
SNA. There is also a range of views about identifying SNA’s on PCl. Helen noted that PNA surveys are
still used to identify SNA’s.
Gerry commented that the NHF Committee needs to be mindful about recommending the purchase
of SNA’s. The benefits of owning a SNA/protected area need to be well publicised, so that people
made aware of these, therefore promote stewardship.
Jan asked about the alignment of the biodiversity NPS with the Freshwater NPS, particularly whether
freshwater ecosystems might slip through the cracks or will the Freshwater NPS protect them? Helen
comments that the two NPS’ should line up, and that the Freshwater NPS protects freshwater
ecosystems. The Biodiversity NPS is also tenure neutral, with for example both Māori and LINZ land
being subject to it.
The NPS’ implementation work is still underway. The NPS will help smooth over inequalities between
councils. Local councils may also need to work together e.g. like what’s happening with the West
Coast One Plan. Some councils will need help, others have already identified SNAs. Jane commented
there will be guidance alongside the SNA.
The Biodiversity Strategy will direct the NPS’.
Finances
4

NHF budget
Bruce stated there’s $2,965,570 of NHF funding to allocate. Lou Sanson told the Committee (during
the Ōhau Down’s celebration) about the $5,000,000 of surplus departmental funding that has been
put into the NHF general budget.
Gerry commented that it may be serious that the NHF’s finances haven’t been fully revealed to the
Committee. Bruce commented on the origins of the $5 million, that it’s a one-off and brought about
by the previous MOC.
SILNA Budget
There’s $4,619,342 currently allocated across nine SILNA projects.
SILNA
Bruce updated the Committee about the potential of getting the Cathedral Caves block valued, and
the issues of paying for this. 9(2)(g)(i)


Orbit
The Committee commented that:
• Orbit are late at providing itineraries
• It would be cheaper for the Committee to book their own flights directly.
Bruce’s update on active cases
Areas to be classified/awaiting DOC Statutory Land Management action
• 00/05 O’Brien, Monowai, Southland and Wang/Morgan, Cromarty, Fiordland; 95/35 King DT
& Co, Southland
Bruce to confirm with DOC legal the progress of the relevant Orders in Council.
• 13/02 Earthquakes, North Otago: Acquired and held for the purpose of a Scientific
Reserve.  Waiting for a report from our local office who are working with rūnanga on the
name for the reserve, we can then progress next steps, i.e. formalising the name via the New
Zealand Geographic Board and public notification processes.
• Canaan Downs Farm: The area acquired using NHF funds is currently held, protected and
managed as a Scenic Reserve. Existing recreational activities on the site are not compatible
with the adjoining National Park Management Plan. Current management will continue until
such a time as the National Park Management Plan is to be reviewed.
• Additions to Hakatere Conservation Park: The area purchased using NHF funds has been
combined with other conservation areas which will be added to Hakatere Conservation Park
as a bulk addition. Access agreements relating to the additions are still to be finalised and
completed, prior to this work progressing. Gerry considers the Committee mightn’t be being
provided all the details about this area’s classification.
5

• Addition to Craigieburn Conservation Park: The area purchased using NHF funds has been
combined with other conservation areas for a bulk addition to Craigieburn Conservation
Park. The addition is subject to completion of an exchange agreement and associated
permits/processes. The exchange is currently being managed via our legal team, who are
waiting for the external party to come back to them on some outstanding issues.
Closed
• 20/02 Paeroa/Knuckle Point
• 04/15 Pierau, Lake Spectacle, Te Ari, Welsford
• 06/09 Raketapauma Wetland, Waiouru
• 09/09 Curio Cove, Catlins
• 12/02 Rakitu island, Hauraki Gulf
• 15/06 Castle Down- remaining $8,667 returned to the NHF general budget
• 15/09 Otuwhero- remaining $76,152 returned into the NHF’s general budget
Stalled
• 00/06 9(2)(a), Tongaporutu, Taranaki
Bruce to provide an update on 25/11.
18/11- Ngā Whenua Rāhui manager said that 9(2)(a)
is keen to engage with them. NWR
will keep Bruce updated on progress.
Stalled
• 04/03 9(2)(a) Stonewall Block, Wairarapa- $11,760.83 remaining
DOC SLM staff said recently that 9(2)(a)
the transmission to new owners will also take some time. SLM will discuss the easement
with the new owners in due course.
• 11/01 9(2)(a) , Miranda-$1,838.69 remaining
The land acquired by NHF has been classified as Scenic Reserve, however part of the acquisition
also included a covenant to be completed after the land purchase (on adjoining area). The
landowner has not signed the covenant, cross checking various elements. Local office rangers do
keep an eye on the area, in the interim the SLM Advisor has placed a caveat on the landowners
title, has advised the landowners solicitor and requested the covenant documentation be signed
and returned prior to this being lifted.
• 15/11 Bethells Valley, Waitakere
The Crown’s contribution of NHF funds was conditional on the entire 37ha being permanently
protected. To date only a 32ha bush block has been covenanted, with the remaining 5ha of
rough pasture and wetland remaining as unencumbered freehold land. On a pro rata basis, the
5ha is worth ~$40k of NHF funding. DOC SLM and Bruce have corresponded with the applicant,
but haven’t received a reply.
18/11- DOC Auckland will now endeavor to contact the applicant.
Underway
6

• 04/26 Greville Harbour, D’Urville Island- $61,174.92 remaining
The remaining money in this project’s budget has been repurposed and is slowly and surely
being spent.
• 14/01 Underwood, Hoanga, Dargaville- $15,514.44 remaining
Bruce is chasing up the invoice required to complete the spending of the remaining funds.
• 14/02 Fantail Rise- $7561 to spend on replanting
• 05/12 South Chatham Animal Control and 95/29 Holmes/Seymour/Day Chatham covenant- Sth
Chatham $30,229.30 remaining, Holmes $17,796.20
Bruce is frequently seeking updates from Chathams DOC
• 12/04 Allans Bush $7,700.78 remaining
DOC Wairarapa have engaged in the 3-year contract with a provider to undertake weed controls,
focusing primarily on Cobaea scadens (cathedral bells).
They have not started their control work for this financial year yet but DOC expect to reduce the
remaining NHF budget by 30-50% once they have completed their work for this financial year
(prior to 30/06/21).
• 13/09 project negotiation- $25,986.94 remaining
• 15/08 Rosser Blk, Takaka $77,669.95 remaining.
18/11 DOC is close to completing the survey work. There are still a lot of other processes and
steps to complete before the final transfer and settlement payment so DOC SLM expect that the
land will be transferred later next year.
• 16/06 Malbon, Kanuka Downs- $5,804.72 remaining
The settlement took place on 15 May 2019. SLM Canterbury are progressing the gazetting of the
area as scientific reserve.
• 17/05 Kitchener Park, Manawatu- $100,000 remaining
Stalled while MDC and LINZ determine survey requirements.
• 9(2)(j)
• 18/04 Upper Taieri Scroll Plan $118,850 deposit paid in October 2020. $1,348,800 remaining.
Remaining costs are
o
Purchase- $1,118,850
o
Fencing- up to $65,700
o
Surveying- up to $25,000
o
Legal- up to $750
This leaves a surplus of up to $138,500.
• 19/04 Honeymoon Valley Peria $375,000 remaining.
7

Once the applicant receives a new valuation (commissioned at their expense), hopefully before
the end of 2020 they’ll put a final offer to the vendor.
Recently completed
• 18/05, Ōhau Downs, Mackenzie Basin
• 19/02 Rawene Hokianga
• 16/09 Himatangi Beach- final payment of settlement payment of $257,368.40 made on
12/11/2020. Currently $10,948.99 remaining
• 19/07 Taieri Paerau wetland. The applicant asked the Committee to consider $15,000 more
funding to cover legal costs. The Committee declined this request.
Withdrawn cases
18/02 Kaitorete- all funding allocated was returned to the NHF general budget
8

Attachment 1
9

Item 4 - Draft Minutes 8 July 2021

Item 5 - Approved Minutes 15 July 2021

Approved minutes for urgent consideration of F&B’s Arowhenua
application (15/07)
24/11/21 motion to accept moved by Gerry, seconded by Paula, carried.
Date: 31 August 2021, 5-5.30pm via phone
Present: Jan Riddell (Chair), Gerry McSweeney, Gina Solomon, Sue Rickman, Paula Smith, and in
support Bruce Hill and Kees Hyink (DOC).
Gina opened the meeting with a karakia.
Jan provided the following background to this application:
In 2015 the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (the Society) applied for funding for the
purchase of an approximately 11-hectare tall forest remnant (the Land) near Temuka
(Canterbury).  Since the 1970’s the Society has worked on restoring the Land with its successive
owners. In 2016 the then Minister of Conservation approved funding to purchase the Land.
Despite best endeavours by the Crown’s negotiator, the landowner decided in 2017 not to sell
the Land. One issue was that the landowner wanted the Crown to purchase them a nearby area,
by way of an exchange.
The Society approached the NHF Committee (the Committee) in June 2021 about reactivating this
application. On 4 August 2021 the Society detailed in a letter to the NHF their reasoning for this
reactivation, and their revised proposal.
Jan pointed out that the urgency is due to:
• the lack of permanent protection for the remnant forest and past incursions by landowner’s
cattle, to its detriment.
• the Land being highly significant, as its one of two areas of podocarp forest remaining on the
Canterbury Plains.
Jan commented that the Society has worked hard restoring and protecting this very significant area.
Gerry agreed and both commented that the area is significant today as it was when the Committee
considered it in 2015.
Jan noted that the Society has applied for a contribution of $70,000 of Crown funding via the NHF,
having raised the balance (approximately 9(2)(i)
).
The Committee discussed whether the Society required funding to securely fence the area. Bruce
undertook to determine if this necessary and what the current state of the fencing is.
Public access was also discussed. Bruce pointed out that its highly likely there is as-of-right public
access along the Opihi riverbed. It was agreed that as F&B is the majority funder, they determine the
degree of public access. Both Gina and Sue mentioned that the Land would likely be very suitable to
be protected via a QEII covenant. After some discussion the Committee were comfortable with the
Society proposing a suitable mechanism that would permanently protect the land.
There was much discussion about how the Committee meets the MOC’s expectation that the
Committee will give effect to its Conservation Act section 4 obligations. Jan mentioned that the
DOCCM 6798357

Society had stated that they wish to discuss their proposal with the Arowhenua rūnanga (rūnanga).
Gina pointed out that the Land was likely a significant mahinga kai site for the rūnanga, and so
they’re likely interested in discussing access to the Land. Gina undertook to check the Iwi
Management Plan relevant Policies for the Arowhenua rohe and report back to the Committee.
Given that the Crown is potentially a minority contributor to this purchase, the Committee agreed
that the Society be responsible for consulting with rūnanga. Bruce offered DOC ‘s assistance with
facilitating this, the Committee accepted this offer.
The Committee agreed that it would finalise its recommendation to the MOC, once it has reviewed
the results of the consultation between the rūnanga and the Society.
The meeting closed at 5.30pm
DOCCM 6798357

Item 6 - Draft Minutes 24 November 2021

Item 7 - Draft Minutes 1 March 2022